GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents on 29/10/2001 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dtd. 25. 9. 2001 (Annex. 4) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) by which the application (Annex. 1) of the petitioner dtd. 29. 11. 2000 filed under Section 36 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947) was rejected inter alia holding that since on two earlier occasions permission to be represented through a lawyer was accorded to the respondent No. 2 (employer) therefore, that permission would not be reviewed, be quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: i) That through order dtd. 30. 3. 2000, the State Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur (respondent No. 1 ). ii) That reference was registered by respondent No. 1 (Industrial Tribunal) on 24. 4. 2000 and thereafter notices were issued to the parties. iii) On 18. 7. 2000, the respondent No. 2 appeared before respondent No. 1 (Industrial Tribunal) through his advocate Shri Mahesh Bhatt and the next date was fixed as 27. 9. 2000. iv) That on 27. 9. 2000, respondent No. 2 appeared before respondent No. 1 (Industrial Tribunal) through Shri B. S. Devpura, Advocate and permission was accorded to the respondent No. 2 to be represented by a lawyer and the next date was fixed as 29. 11. 2000. v) That on 29. 11. 2000, the respondent No. 2 appeared through his advocate Shri Narendra Devpura. On 29. 11. 2000, the petitioner moved an application (Annex. 1) under Section 36 (4) of the Act of 1947 with a prayer that the respondent No. 1 could not give permission to respondent No. 2 to be represented by a lawyer until and unless the formalities as required by the provisions of Section 36 (4) of the Act of 1947 were not complied with. THEreafter the case was fixed on 20. 12. 2000. vi) On 20. 12. 2000, the respondent No. 2 moved an application (Annex. 3) before the respondent No. 1 (Industrial Tribunal) stating that since permission to be represented by a lawyer had already been accorded to the respondent No. 2 twice by the respondent No. 1 (Industrial Tribunal), therefore, the same could not be reviewed and revoked Hence the application (Annex. 1) filed by the petitioner should be dismissed. vii) That the learned Tribunal (respondent No. 1) vide order dtd. 25. 9. 2001 (Annex. 4) after hearing both the parties rejected the application (Annex. 1) filed by the petitioner inter alia holding that since there is no provision for reviewing the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal (respondent No. 1) and since the permission had already been accorded twice vide orders dtd. 18. 7. 2000 and 27. 9. 2000 therefore, there is no question of reviewing the earlier orders dtd. 18. 7. 2000 and 27. 9. 2000. This order dtd. 25. 9. 2001 (Annex. 4) has been challenged in this writ petition. In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the permission could be accorded to be represented by a lawyer only when the formalities as required by Section 36 (4) of the Act of 1947 are complied with and since in the present case the formalities as required by Section 36 (4) of the Act of 1947 have not been complied with, therefore, the application (Annex. 1) filed by the petitioner should have been allowed and thus, the order dtd. 25. 9. 2001 (Annex. 4) passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal (respondent No. 1) is perse illegal and deserves to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Industries vs. State of Rajasthan (1 ). Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 2 and it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the order dtd. 25. 9. 2001 (Annex. 4) was rightly passed by the learned Tribunal (respondent No. 1) as there was no provision for reviewing the earlier order and since the permission to be represented by a lawyer was accorded to the respondent No. 2 in the presence of the petitioner, therefore, compliance of Section 36 (4) of the Act of 1994 was made by the Learned Tribunal (respondent No. 1) and hence no interference is called for in the order dtd. 25. 9. 2001 (Annex. 4) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Industrial Tribunal ). The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of the Pali Central Cooperative Bank Limited vs. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal and Anr. Heard the counsel for the parties. There is no dispute in this case that on 18. 7. 2000, the petitioner appeared in person and the respondent No. 2 appeared through his lawyer Shri Mahesh Bhatt and the permission was accorded to the respondent No. 2 to be represented by a lawyer. Further from the order dtd. 27. 9. 2000, it is also clear that on 27. 9. 2000 in place of Mahesh Bhatt, Shri B. S. Devpura, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and again the permission was accorded to the respondent No. 2 to be represented by a lawyer.
(3.) THERE is also no dispute on the point that on 29. 11. 2000, the petitioner moved an application (Annex. 1) under section 36 (4) of the Act of 1947 which was rejected by the learned Industrial Tribunal vide order dtd. 25. 9. 2001 (Annex. 4 ). For convenience Section 36 (4) is quoted hereunder: " 36. Representation of parties:- (1 ). . . . . 2 . . . . 3 . . . . (4) In any proceeding before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, a party to a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner with the consent of other parties to the proceeding and with the leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be. " A bare perusal of Section 36 (4) of the Act of 1947 reveals that for permitting a party to be represented by a lawyer, the concerned opposite party will have to give consent. ;