R.K. Gupta, J.

The petitioner by way of filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 18-5-2004 which is Annexure P/10 to the petition. The impugned order has been passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Bhopal exercising its jurisdiction u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The claim of the petitioner before the Labour Court had been that Shri Uttam Kumar Pardasani was employed in the month of February, 2000. He claimed that he has not been paid salary by the management for a period from October, 2002 to May, 2003. He further claimed that he has not been paid his daily allowance, traveling allowance, telephone allowance, mail allowance and other monetary benefits. Therefore he was forced to file an application through the Union u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

During the proceedings before the Labour Court an application was filed by the Union on 16-10-2003 objecting the appearance of an Advocate in terms of section 36(3), (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Court passed an order prohibiting appearance of the Advocate on behalf of the petitioner/company.

Counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions. First submission is that the Labour Court has committed illegality by proceeding ex parte against the petitioner/company and therefore the order passed by the Labour Court (Annexure-P/10 dated 18-5-2004) is bad in law. The second submission which has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner/company is that even assuming that the Labour Court has rightly proceeded ex parte then it has no jurisdiction u/s 33-C(2) to entertain the claim of the employee and therefore the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside.

Dealing with the first submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, complete order sheets of the Labour Court has been filed which is Annexure-P/9 to the petition. As it is evident from the order sheets, on 21-8-2003 on behalf of the petitioner, Advocate Shri Sanjay Shrivastava appeared and filed his Vakalatnama on the aforesaid date. The application, objecting appearance of an Advocate filed by the employee/Union u/s 33(3), (4) was supplied and the counsel for the petitioner/management sought time to the reply. On 18-9-2003 reply to the said application was filed by the management through their counsel Shri Sanjeev Shrivastava and thereafter the matter was fixed for 9-10-2003 for the arguments of the parties on the said application. On 9-10-2003, on behalf of the management one Shri R. P. Sharma, Advocate appeared and submitted the written arguments to the application of the respondent/employee.

On 16-10-2003, parties were absent and the Labour Court passed the order prohibiting the appearance of the Advocate of the management. The said order has been passed by the Labour Court on the ground that since on behalf of the union no Advocate had been appearing therefore in terms to section 36(4) of the I. D. Act, 1947 the appearance on behalf of the management through an Advocate was prohibited. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since on 16-10-2003, no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner/management therefore after when the appearance of an Advocate of the company was prohibited then it was the bounded duty of the Labour Court to issue notice afresh to the management.

It may be noticed that after the order sheet dated 16-10-2003 when the Labour Court prohibited the appearance of an Advocate appearing for the company then the case was fixed for written statement on 11-11-2003. On this date, a written statement has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/management. Thus, it was not a case where the petitioner/management was not aware of the date fixed by the Labour Court for 11-11-2003 by passing an order on 16-10-2003. The reply was filed on the date fixed by the Labour Court by the petitioner/management on 11-11-2003. O