Judgment 1. In this case the petitioner Ram Kapil Singh along with forty-one other workmen made an application before the Labour Court of Patna for being represented through the President and Secretary of the Indian Hume Pipe Workers Union, which is a registered trade Union, under the provisions of Sec.36 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It appears that the petitioner is a member of a trade union known as Bansi Industries Mazdoor Union, and the registration of that trade union is pending before the Registrar, Trade Union, Bihar. Another union, which is called the Patna Engineering Mazdoor Union, served a Charter of Demand upon the management of the Bansi Industries Limited and the dispute with regard to that matter was referred to the Labour Court in Reference Case No. 3 of 1961. During the hearing of that dispute the petitioner appeared before the Labour Court and filed two applications dated the 9th of May, 1961, and 5th of June, 1961, praying that the petitioner and the other workmen who were signatories to the two petitions may be made parties to the reference and may also be allowed to be represented through the President and Secretary of the Indian Hume Pipe Workers Union under Sec.36 (i) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. These petitions have been rejected by the Labour Court by its order dated the 7th June, 1961. 2. The petitioner has now obtained a rule from the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution calling upon the respondents to show cause why the order of the Labour Court dated the 7th June, 1961, should not be set aside. 3. Cause has been shown by learned Counsel on behalf of respondents 2 to 22 on whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given. 4. On behalf of the petitioner learned Counsel submitted that the Labour Court has committed a mistake of law in holding that Sec.36 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act only applies to a case of a worker who is not a member of any trade union whether registered or unregistered. 4. On behalf of the petitioner learned Counsel submitted that the Labour Court has committed a mistake of law in holding that Sec.36 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act only applies to a case of a worker who is not a member of any trade union whether registered or unregistered. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that Sec.36 (i) (c) applies to a case of a worker who is not a member of a registered trade union and such a worker has a right of representation under the Act by an officer of any registered trade union connected with the industry in which the worker is employed. In our opinion the argument put forward by learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner is well founded and must be accepted as correct. Sec.36 (r) reads as follows :- "36. (i) A workman who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this act by -- (a) an officer of a registered trade union of which he is a member; (b) an officer of a federation of trade unions to which the trade union referred to in clause (a) is affiliated; (c) Where the worker is not a member of any trade union, by an officer of any trade union connected with, or by any other workman employed in, the industry in which the worker is employed and authorized in such manner as may be prescribed." It is true that Sec.36 (i) (c) confers a right of representation in the proceeding upon a worker "who is not a member of any trade union". But when the language of Sec.36 (i) (c) is construed in the light of Sec.36 (i) (a) (sic) of the Act it is manifest that Sec.36 (i) (c) applies to the case of a worker who is not a member of any registered trade union. In other words, the right of representation conferred by Sec.36 (1) (c) is given to a worker who is a member of an unregistered trade union as also to a worker who is not a member of any trade union at all, either registered or unregistered. It was submitted by learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents that the right conferred by Sec.36 (i) (c) cannot be availed of by a worker who is a member of an unregistered trade union. It was submitted by learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents that the right conferred by Sec.36 (i) (c) cannot be availed of by a worker who is a member of an unregistered trade union. We are unable to accept this argument as correct, because if such an interpretation is put upon Sec.36 (i) (c) it will confer an advantageous position upon a worker who is not a member of any trade union at all as compared to a worker who is a member of an unregistered trade union. Such a consequence cannot have been in contemplation of the Legislature, and therefore we hold that the right conferred by Sec.36 (i) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act can be availed of by a worker who is a member of an unregistered trade union. It follows, therefore, that the view of the law taken by the Labour Court with regard to the interpretation of this section in its order dated the 7th June, 1961, is erroneous and must be overruled. 5 We are, however, unable to dispose of this application finally because there is no material in the record of the case to prove one way or the other whether the Indian Hume Pipe Workers Union is connected with the Bansi Industries Limited in which the petitioner is employed. It is, therefore, necessary that the case should now go back to the Labour Court, Bihar, for deciding the question whether the trade union through which the petitioner seeks representation, namely, the Indian Hume Pipe Workers Union, is "connected with" the Bansi Industries Limited in which the petitioner is employed within the meaning of Sec.36 (i) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. Acting, therefore, in exercise of our authority under Article 227 of the Constitution we allow this application, set aside the order of the Labour Court dated the 7th June, 1961, and remand the case for being reheard by it in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations we have made in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs with regard to this application.