Legal representation in labor disputes requires mutual consent per Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the court upheld this requirement in its ruling.

The petitioner herein is the management in I.D No.13 of 2020, pending on the file of the Labour Court, Kollam. The proceedings were initiated by the workman challenging the order of termination and seeking reinstatement. In Ext.P1 petition filed before the Labour Court, the workman has withheld consent to the opposite parties to be represented by a legal practitioner in the proceedings by invoking Section 36 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . The said application was considered by the Labour Court, and Ext.P5 order was issued holding that in view of the prohibition under (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the application filed by the workman is only to be allowed. Aforesaid order is under challenge.

2. Sri. Unni Sebastian Kappen, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the request made by the workman was allowed by the Labour Court relying on the law laid down inPardip Port Trust, Pardip v. Their workmen [ 1977 (2) SCC 339 ]. According to the learned counsel, a two-judge Bench of the Apex Court had occasion to consider the constitutional validity of Section 36 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and by an interim order dated 21.08.2019, had doubted the law laid down inPardip and referred the matter to be considered by a larger Bench. According to the learned counsel, in view of Exhibits P6 and P7, the Labour Court had no other go but to dismiss Ext.P4 application filed by the workman. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein is physically and mentally unwell and is suffering from various ailments. Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel on various other certificates, and it is argued that the Labour Court ought to have sympathetically considered the grievance of the petitioner herein and ought to have permitted him to be represented by a legal practitioner. It is further submitted that the Trade Union leader who has been permitted to represent the workmen has absolutely no relation whatsoever to the business or industry to which the worker is employed. According to the learned counsel, as there is no reasonable nexus between the trade union office bearer and the industry in which the worker is employed, the Labour Court ought not have permitted the workman to be represented by Sri. Jayaprakash, who is a trade union leader based in Kollam.

3. I have considered the submissions advanced.

4. Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as under:

Section 36 : Representation of parties (1) A workman who is a party to dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by-

(a) Any member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union of which he is a member;

(b) Any member of the executive or other office bearer of a federation of trade unions to which the trade union referred to in clause (a) is affiliated;

(c) Where the worker is not a member of any trade union, by any member of the executive or other office bearer] of any trade union connected with, or by any other workman employed in, the Industry in which the worker is employed and authorised in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) An employer who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by-

(a) An officer of an association of employers of which he is a member;

(b) An officer of a federation of association of employers to which the association referred to in clause (a) is affiliated-

(c) Where the employer is not a member of any association of employers, by an officer of any association of employers connected with, or by any other employer engaged in, the industry in which the employer is engaged and authorised in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) No party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings under this Act or in any proceedings before a Court.

(4) In any proceeding 3[before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], a party to a dispute may be repre