KALJANG DORJE Vs. DORJE PHUNCHOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

(2.) The petitioner-Cement Corporation of India has challenged the order dated October 19, 1995 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, whereby despite the objection of the petitioner-Corporation, the application of the workmen for engagement of a legal practitioner was allowed. Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides for representation of parties. Sub-section (4) of Section 36 is as under:

(3.) Sub-section (4) of Section 36 of the Act came for consideration of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen, (1976-II-LLJ-409) and they have held that for the engagement of a legal practitioner both the consent of other party as well as the permission of the Labour Court/Labour Tribunal is required. The observations of the learned judges of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 20 and 21 are relevant. These are: