ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“In view of the submissions made above, the Petitioner, therefore, most respectfully prays that this Hon‟ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the -

(1) impugned order dated 02/08/2016 passed by the Ld. Central Govt Industrial Tribunal in I.D. 46/2001 TITLED R.K.Bansal Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce. (2) pass any other order or direction as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. ”

2. The relevant facts necessary for the adjudication of the instant petition are as follows:

a) The petitioner is Oriental Bank of Commerce (“petitioner Bank” hereinafter) which is a nationalized Bank incorporated under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. The respondent herein was employed by the petitioner Bank.

b) The respondent workman was suspended on 12th February 1987 and was eventually dismissed from his service on 21st June 1996 with retrospective effect from 25th May 1996.

c) Thereafter, the respondent was convicted under Sections 498 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi vide order dated 25th May, 1995. Pursuant to which , the petitioner Bank issued a show cause notice dated 27th May, 1996, to the respondent and further vide order dated 21st June, 1996, dismissed him from the service.

d) Thereafter, the respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Appropriate Government, Delhi and vide notification dated 10th July, 2001 the Appropriate Government referred the said dispute to the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal (“CGIT” hereinafter), for adjudicating upon the issue -whether the action of the management of petitioner Bank in dismissing the services of the respondent w.e.f. 25th May, 1996, was legal and just and if not then what relief the respondent is entitled to.

e) The petitioner was represented before the CGIT from 2nd January, 2003, by Ms. Kittoo Bajaj who is a legal practitioner and is also the Executive Member of the Indian Employers Association.

f) Subsequently, by way of an application dated 12th September, 2013, filed before the CGIT, under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act” hereinafter), the respondent sought debarring of the Authorized Representatives (“AR‟s” hereinafter) namely Ms. Kittoo Bajaj and Ms. Sadaf Naaz who are practicing advocates, to appear before the CGIT on behalf of the petitioner.

g) Pursuant to the aforesaid application the learned CGIT passed the impugned order dated 2ndAugust, 2016, in favor of the respondent herein, and held that the petitioner Bank is not entitled to defend its case through a legal practitioner or an advocate.

h) Therefore, being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner Bank has assailed the same by way of the instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that learned Tribunal erred in passing the impugned order as it has been passed without taking into consideration the entire facts, circumstances and settled position of law.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner is being represented by the AR i.e., Ms. Kittoo Bajaj since 2nd January, 2003, who is an executive member of the Indian Employers Association. The respondent did not object to her representation initially, it was only at a later stage that the respondent preferred the application dated 12th September, 2013, challenging the same. The said challenge preferred at a belated stage amounts to implied consent on behalf of the respondent and hence, the respondent is now estopped from challenging the same.

5. It is submitted that an authorized representative who is a legal practitioner can appear before the Tribunal without submitting their license to practice law, in the capacity of an „officer‟ of the em