1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LPA No. 91/2008 in Writ Petition No.135/2008 Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nagpur Vs. Food Corporation of India Employees Association and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's order Judge's orders and Registrar's order ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram : A.P. Lavande And P.D. Kode, JJ. Dated : 18th March 2009. Heard Mr. S.R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.C. Marpakwar, learned counsel for respondent no.1. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the order dated 17.1.2008 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition 135/2008 dismissing the writ petition filed challenging the order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal rejecting the prayer of the appellant to engage an Advocate. In reference pending between the petitioner and respondent no.1 pertaining to the dispute about seniority of one Shri Ramesh and others employed by the appellant, the appellant filed an application seeking permission to engage an advocate on its behalf which was opposed by respondent no.1. According to the appellant, the 2 workman Shri S. Ramesh has passed LL. B. and as such he is legally trained and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to be represented by an Advocate. According to respondent no.1, the matter before the Tribunal is being conducted by Shri N.H. Shukla representative of the union and not by Shri S. Ramesh. The statement to this effect which was not even disputed by the appellant herein and the same was relied upon by the learned Single Judge and consequently the petition was dismissed. Mr. Marpakwar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 states that the proceedings before the Tribunal are being conducted and shall be conducted by Shri N.H. Shukla. This being the position, the question of granting permission to the appellant to engage an Advocate on the ground that Shri S. Ramesh is law graduate does not arise. In view of the above, we reject the Letters Patent Appeal. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.