A.K. Basu, J. - (1.) This writ petition is at the instance of petitioner, Sonali Bank challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 16th November, 2006 whereby the Tribunal accepted the contention of the workmen regarding representation of the petitioner through a legal counsel under Sec. 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(2.) In a reference dispute before the Tribunal the petitioner as management entered appearance through its engaged legal counsel and coming to know about this engagement the workmen raised objection by filing a petition and the Learned Tribunal by the order impugned in this writ petition observed that since the workmen did not give their consent to such engagement of legal counsel, under provisions of Sec. 36(4) of the Act Tribunal cannot allow the petitioner management to be represented by any legal counsel.
(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this order the present writ petition has been filed and the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner management has mainly made these submissions before me in support of this writ petition and those are, first, that in this case from the several orders recorded by the Tribunal it would be clear that there was implied consent from the workmen in the matter of engagement of a legal counsel on behalf of the management and finally the petitioner management being not aware of the intricacies of the labour laws of the land they would not be in a position to represent their case effectively and in that case and considering their peculiar position in the interest of justice and fair play the petitioner management should have the right to place its case through a legal counsel and the Tribunal neglected both the points while disposing of the petition filed by the workmen challenging engagement of a legal counsel by the petitioner management.;