1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi WRIT PETITION NO. 460 OF 2009 . Madura Coats Employees Union. ..Petitioner. vs. Madura Coats Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr. V.A. Pai, for Petitioner. Mr.S.M. Naik, a/w. Mr. Shailesh More, for Respondents. .... CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 11 TH AUGUST 2009. P.C. By this writ petition, the petitioners have impugned the order passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai dated 7 th January 2009, rejecting the application which was filed by the petitioners dated 5 th January 2004, contending that as per section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the employer is not entitled to be represented by the legal practitioner as a matter of right and that the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased not to allow any legal practitioner to represent the company in reference (I.T.) No.77 of 2003. 2. The Industrial Court has by following the decision in Engineering Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay vs. Meher (M.R.), (Industrial 2 Tribunal, Bombay) and others, reported in 1966 1 L.L.J. 580 (Division Bench), rejected the application of the petitioners herein on the ground that on 11 th November 2003, a date was taken by consent by the Advocates for both the sides, when no objection was taken by the Union. There was therefore implied consent for appearance of Advocate on behalf of the first party-Company. The objection taken by the second party – Union is not tenable. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has stated in support of his contention that the impugned order needs no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has also drawn my attention to the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of T.K. Varghese vs. Nichimen Corporation, reported in 2001 II CLR 55. 3. I, therefore, see no reason for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]