O R D E R

10th January 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.

I.A. No. 6493 of 2021 The appellant-in-person has filed this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. The appellant-in-person has referred the following paragraphs in support of this application:

“4. That it is stated and submitted that stipulated period for filing of the L.P.A has been expired on 17.06.2019.

5. That it is stated and submitted that and after losing the writ petition, petitioner/ appellant who is an organization has made every efforts to arrange necessary money for filing of the present memo of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, and its took some time and due to it delay occurred.

6. That it is further stated and submitted that on 24.07.2019 appellant came to Ranchi and consulted to his Advocate for filing of the case. After discussion, the memo of appeal was drafted and the same was filed before this

Hon'ble Court on 26.07.2019.”

3. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has raised no objection.

4. In view of the statements made in the interlocutory application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

5. I.A. No. 6493 of 2021 is, accordingly, allowed.

6. The order dated 18th May 2019 passed in W.P.(L) No. 1036 of

2015 has been challenged by the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha.

7. Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey who is appearing in-person on behalf of the Mazdoor Sabha states that he is representing the appellant in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

8. According to the appellant-in-person, in Reference Case No. 3 of 2014 the legal representatives of the Management of M/s Usha Martin Limited continued to appear in breach of the mandate under sub-section (3) to section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ID Act) and the Award dated 7th August 2020 has been made. Therefore, outcome of the present Letters Patent Appeal would have a substantial impact on legality of the aforesaid Award dated 7th August 2020.

9. In the aforesaid background, we have heard the appellant-in- person who has referred to section 36 of the ID Act to challenge the order dated 15th December 2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi, by which the objection taken on behalf of the workmen to the appearance of Mr. Satish Bakshi and Mr. A.K. Verma on behalf of the Management of M/s Usha Martin Limited has been rejected by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi.

10. The submission made at Bar is that considering the very nature of the disputes which are adjudicated by the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal etc. the Legislature has consciously decided not to permit any party to the dispute to take legal help from a legal practitioner. To substantiate the objection so taken to the appearance of Mr. Satish Bakshi and Mr. A.K. Verma who according to the workmen are active legal practitioners, the appellant-in-person has extensively read out the judgment in “Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen” (1977) 2 SCC 339.

11. The ID Act has been brought on the statute book with the object of making provisions for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, and for certain other purposes. The object behind the ID Act is to ensure social justice to both the employers and the employees, and to ensure progress of the industry by bringing about harmony and cordial relationship between both the parties. The restriction on engagement and appearance of the legal practitioner during any conciliation proceeding and the proceedings in the Court which would include Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal etc. is based on the premise that the Labour Laws operate in a different field where there are two unequal contestants. With the aforesaid object in the forefront, section 36 of the ID Act, however, makes a limited provision for representation of parties in the Court.

12. The provisions under section 36 of the ID Act are extracted hereinbelow:

“36. Representation of parties.-(1) A workman who is