3M' &_Hia}-'ICOOET OT-:Har»T&'.P iaSI,^3^ M.;P.«e>;,l l'"&£ 1&90 ti^:'t t ^')~^ . .!^s»,'l i.E^: TQbacqo .^iQ.auatss, /a:'»e^s^ ^ ''^^i^'"^1.. .••Barfene3Eshie.,.aoBcreta Sbayu.^'its :^r^ -•^r~"fliO?'3'S~**^iB®^t':Baaj. 'pais.el, /Sa3,fa^}S:Es, - .oongatgaefa, ~" ''!^>-£"tsK—e.gsfet..,aajnaadgaoa^. M. P.. : „.; . V ,:•<»,.' - . • •h.C^\'•»Lt.^a..———. S^ji.gU .....^ a^w^a: fieiBltitensr'^ W:39 versus :;.. i®^1 .f ,^>pellate;..Au-ehQ;itty (ifeeai^,.G.i.$ar'.:te!.t»:.I>968:^ ^^•' ^ •^^:. ] &^Assisl^nfc,'iaaamissi0:riei'.ot.IaI»ur^?^a£B3?:^;: 'tr-'^,-9>o ] Qwisism, Salffa.v,' ~';' ':.;•',,' '-'•..^'^ 2. Senaaaand sen of •Sassnul'lPulley, 'iaanteswari.^ ' ! Vasa, Xnaixa •ya^,?SOii,'ll,:-i»M^gargaita,;:A.^.;^:'1^ ®ji,stt.,^ jaaraclg«>ia».,;-'-'' • :! ;'..• ^. . ',;';;^^' 'PQfeifc.tOri 'uiider''Ait».22&..&. 2:27' ;6f.tbe,(^aa1iilfea!t.ta,tipi;oieg^(^|i.ia| •for a wrife in,. yie'nafeuEe, o:f ..maR<BanU.s»': %ert:.ip;FS:iE'3.,:^:"®is@.;ssSfey| l-HG—78 ^^^[pTr?R, ^f.ly'i'o, isj^iiyy ^ ^^0 Sfi^r T^f R;-ii=h ^^ 3TT^F g)*l 'STBtWdft^ ST^I 21-06-200S Shri H.B. ^rawal, Sr. fhe respondent No. 2. Hcard. Couilsel cpi^^ll T^^ ^ ft^f Tf^R^R ^afRitisi^t Sushri Sharmfla Sn^hai, Ccjunsel for fhe petittoner. wiffa Shri Paakaj Agrawal, Adv. for Thc peti.tk>ner has filed lidsl Shrivastava was a part tiine been peTanltted to appear ou provisions ofSection 36 (2) ofthe petition on the ground fhat Shri M.L. of fhe pctLttoner and he had not of fhe petitioner interpreting the Advocates Act. einp^oyee bebalf Wfaen fhe matter came up decasion of a Division Bcnch in.Nl fhafc- "We ftierefore, direct fbat fhe procecdings pending bcjFoTe tfae Beedi & Cigar Worker^ 1966, if fhewitnesses aac M.L. Shrivasteya should U authority and cross-exainin^ fhat fiufher pj3oceedings on but final decision wffl ,thispeti.tion. In fhispetition), ^ for hearu^ on 25-4-1990, noting fhe I.P. No. 554/1982, fhe Court directed p^ndii^ disposal offhM petition, ia tfae appdlate aufhonfy xmder (eondltk»ns of Einpl<ymen1) Act to be cioss-csramiried, SIiri permitted to appeac bcfore that fhc witnesscs. Wc furtfaer direct fhe appeBate aufhority iuay go be rendered until the dfaposal of fhe only question tQ be cxaiiuncd r^qiured beflbre no!t ,-r XI-HG—78 3^T •*i]^i<vi<4, ®fll-M<i<o, ?^<'fi<-iy,< . up ^^>ho sn^r TT5R>' (1^3^;) S'E.""^!^! Tar 3]T^i g?iiRT 'R<nwHf?a sn^i -l^ ^p?f^r4T;T tTp^rf ^f t^st <R^^gi'<: ^? 3?fgi[ sn*?t ?^S@s%^iiS msssss'ss Pathak iv-^ .,'^\ is the r^ht of Shri N^.L. Shrivastava to represent fhe petitioner. The above order was pass^d in fhe ycar25-4-1990. Counsel for the parties sjubmit fhat about 15 years have passed and fhe inatter is tyit^ witii the| that Shri M.L. Shrivastava has appeBats authority. It is also subnutted ^lready been pemiitted to CTOss-examinc fhe witaesses. It is subinitted that the matter is pending and only final decision is to be given. | . S7 Shri Agrawal subinitted Ifiat respondent was also reprcscn-tc^ by aa advocate before tiie Coulrt below. He states fhat under fhe circuinstauccs ShriM.L. Shriva^tava, ifso desire inay be pcnnitted in fhe /,. case to rcprescnt the petitioner ^nd hearmg be cxpcdited. Having considered fhe fejcts and ciroumstaiiccs of fhe casc and inaterial on record, it is directejl that ifShriM.L. Shrivastava is in pm-t time eiaploynient of fhe petition^r and he desires he m^ be permitted to represent fhe petitioner. Iflie ijs not avaUable the Gourt concecn.ed niay peEDait parties to a?epresent fheii^ in accordancewifh law but it should be decided asearfyas possible prefcrably wifhin fhree inoaa-fhs fiioin thedate '\ ofprod'uctkinofcopyoffhisordjer. -.^--..-^-.-^..-.^.—^^,_ The petition is acoordingl^ disposed of. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge N.1 •'^