IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2448 of 2008. Date of Decision : January 22, 2009. Hum Nath. ...... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, and others. ...... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents No. 2 to 5. -.- AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The only question in the writ petition which needs to be decided is whether a Legal Practitioner can without the consent of any of the parties to the proceedings, represent before the Labour Court. In the present writ petition, the impugned order is dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, whereby the workman has been debarred from being represented through his representative who is a Legal Practitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the fact that the respondents were proceeded against ex-parte and thereafter on an application made by them for setting aside the said ex-parte proceedings. This very representative of the workman before the Labour Court had consented for C.W.P. No. 2448 of 2008. setting aside the ex-parte proceedings against the respondents. On this basis, he submits that there was an implied consent on behalf of respondents which is the requirement of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the respondent contested this claim of the petitioner and states that in the light of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Indrasan Prasad Versus Presiding Officer and another, 2008 (1) S.C.T. 522, the said contention of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the Full Bench of this Court has held that implied consent of the party and implied leave of the Court are alien to the provisions of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The consent of the party must be specific and so has to be the leave of the Court. In view of the authoritative Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, the contention as put forth by counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted and is accordingly rejected. There being no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 22, 2009. sjks. -2-