HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION Nos. 21259 and 21287 of 1999 ORDER: The issue that arises for consideration in both these writ petitions is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in B.M.Jambunathan v. United News of India[1], wherein it was held as under: “A question, identical to the one that is arising for consideration in this very matter, fell for consideration before this Court, in an unreported judgment in T.Sudhakar Rao v. Management of Eenadu Telugu Daily in W.P.Nos.3935 of 2003 & Batch. The facts are also identical. The only difference is that while in the other case, the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal i.e. the union, was represented by its President, who was a legal practitioner here, the petitioner who approached the Tribunal in his individual capacity by himself, is a legal practitioner. This Court took the view that once the workman had the benefit of availing the service of a legal practitioner, the management cannot be driven to a disadvantageous position. The Tribunal followed the said judgment and overruled the objection raised by the petitioner. Apart from applying the said precedent, the Tribunal had undertaken extensive discussion, on the development of law on this branch. Though the I.A. filed by the petitioner is not referable to any particular provision, the Tribunal had examined the core of the issue and gave its verdict. This Court is of the view that the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are correct and based on thorough analysis of facts and law.” Following the aforesaid judgment, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the Labour Court-II, Guntur to consider the case of the petitioner-Management for engaging an advocate on its behalf and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs. C.V. RAMULU,J Date 19.07.2010. usd [1] 200895) ALT 34