:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9380 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 99 OF 2008 Shri Yellayya Mallayya Zindam ..Petitioner Vs. Shri Harishchandra Shantaram Patil ..Respondent Mr. M.D. Modgi with Mr. Sagar Joshi for the petitioner. Mr. Y.M. Pendse for the respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : February 20, 2008. Date : February 20, 2008. Date : February 20, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. These petitions arise from two different interlocutory orders passed by the Labour Court at Thane and parties to the petitions as well as the Reference before the Labour Court are the same. Hence the petitions are being disposed by a common order. 2. In Writ Petition No. 9380 of 2007 by the impugned order passed by the Labour Court on 5/10/2007 :2: has allowed the application at Exh.16 filed by the workman. The said application was filed under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 taking objection to the appearance of an Advocate on behalf of the petitioner-employer. The petitioner had filed his say at Exh.22 to the said application at Exh.16. However, the Labour Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Management of Keonjhar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Their Workmen [AIR 1977 SC 36] as well as the decisions of this court in the case of Sandoz (India) Ltd. Vs. Association of Chemical Workers and anr. [1998 I CLR 109] and Punjabi Ghasitaram Halwai Karachhiwala vs. Sahadeo Shiva Pawar and ors. [1994 I CLR 223] and held that unless leave was obtained from the Court/Tribunal in writing, ordinarily the employer or any of the parties to the Reference would not be allowed to be represented by a lawyer and in the instant case no such leave was obtained and, therefore, the objection filed by the workman was upheld. 3. In Writ Petition No. 99 of 2008 the :3: petitioner-employer had filed an application at Exh.19 in the very same Reference i.e. Reference (IDA) No.242 of 2003 and sought directions against the workman to produce the documents in support of his contention that he was a member of the United Mazdoor Union as he was being represented in the said Reference before the Labour Court by an office bearer of the said Union. This application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 5/10/2007. 4. During the course of the arguments before this court the learned counsel for the respective parties were unanimous in their submissions that the appearances by the Union office bearer as well as by the Advocate should be accepted so that both the parties have full opportunity to present their respective cases before the Labour Court in their proper perspective and the objections raised by each of them against the other have been withdrawn. 5. Hence the petitioner’s representation through his Advocate is allowed in Reference (IDA) No.242 of 2003 and consequently the petitioner’s objection to :4: the appearance of the office bearer of the United Mazdoor Union stands withdrawn and leave is hereby granted to both the parties accordingly. It is directed that the Misc. Application (IDA) No.23 of 2007 be heard and decided within four weeks from today and if the Reference is restored, it shall be heard and decided preferably before 31/8/2008. 6. The petitions are disposed off in terms of the above directions. Writ to go to the Labour Court forthwith. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)