Civil W. P. No. 10081 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Civil W. P. No. 10081 of 2004 Date of Decision :- 28.11.2009 Balbir Singh Nijjar ... Petitioner Vs. Presiding Officer & Anr. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate, for Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the applicant. Permod Kohli The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.5.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar, rejecting the application of the petitioner for being represented through the Counsel. The issue is now squarely covered by Full Bench judgment of this Court in LPA No. 250 of 2009 decided on 13.11.2009, wherein following observations have been made : “The matter has also been examine in some detail by a Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Power Diploma Engineers' Association's case (supra). From par 16 of the Full Bench judgment it is evident that all the attributes of an Officer as pointed out by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Paradip Port Trust's case (Supra) have been adopted by the Full Bench. It is appropriate to mention that these attributes Civil W. P. No. 10081 of 2004 have been indicated in para 25 of the judgment in Paradip Port Trust's case (supra) to which reference has already been made in the preceding paras. Some of those attributes are that such an Officer has to be on the pay rolls of the company. He has to be under its control and he could not enjoy the freedom to accept cases from other parties as any other legal practitioner. If such are the necessary attributes of an Officer within the meaning of Section 36(2)(a) and (b) then a person who is a legal practitioner and registered as such, cannot become an office bearer of the association of employers or become an office bearer of federation of association of employers to which such an association is affiliated. We further find that Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed in Pardip Port Trust's case (supra)that the rights of representation under Section 36(2) are unconditional. Those rights are not subject to the conditions laid down under Section 36(4) of the ID Act. This petition is accordingly, disposed of in terms of aforementioned observations. November 28, 2009 (Permod Kohli) tripti Judge