( 1 ) THIS is an appeal Against the order dt. 4th April 1974 made by Venkateramiah, J. , in WP. 1235 of 1974 dismissing the writ petition at the preliminary hearing stage. The appellant is the management of the Basavangudi Co-operative society Ltd. , and the first respondent was an employee, of the said society. The appellant society retired the first respondent from its service with effect from 21-2-1971. The first respondent raised an industrial dispute and that was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bangalore (Respondent 2) by the State Govt. A lawyer sought leave of the Labour Court to represent the first respondent which was objected to ,by the appellant which was not represented by a lawyer. Notwithstanding the said objection, the Labour Court granted leave to the first respondent to be represented by. a lawyer. The said order was challenged by the appellant in WP. 1233 of 1974. Venkataramiah,, J. before whom the matter came up for preliminary hearing, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the case is not, one in which the Court should. exercise its discretion under Art. 226 of the constn and interfere with the impugned order of the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the society has preferred the above appeal. ( 2 ) THE question of representation of parties before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court is governed by S. 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Sub-sec. (4) of the said section states that- odinarily legal practitioners are not allowed to represent parties before , "industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts. Sub-sec (4) set out above lays down the conditions under which legal practitioners can be permitted to represent the parties It requires two conditions to be satisfied and the conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The two conditions are (1) consent of the opposite, party; and (2) the exercise of discretion by the Labour Court or Tribunal, as the case may be, to grant or refuse leave. If the opposite party does not consent for the; representation by a legal practitioner, the question of exercising discretion by the, Tribunal or Labour Court does not arise at all. In the instant case, the appellant society did not consent for the representation of the first respondent by a legal practitioner. If the opposite party does not consent for the; representation by a legal practitioner, the question of exercising discretion by the, Tribunal or Labour Court does not arise at all. In the instant case, the appellant society did not consent for the representation of the first respondent by a legal practitioner. Therefore, the Labour Court cquld ndjt have granted any leave, to the lawyer to represent the first respondent. Venkataramla, J. did nqt hold that the order of the Labour Court is legal. He refused to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the discretion of the Court should not be exercised in a matte like this as the society has not showa that any prejudice will be caused. The power Under Art. 226 or 227 of the constn. can be invoked where injustice is caused to any party or where the party is prejudiced by the order sought to be challenged ' In the instant case, the representation of the employee by a, legal practitioner has not been shown to have caused arry prejudice to the management of the society. Therefore, the learned single Judge was right, in declining to exercise his jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constn, For the guidance of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals, we have clarified the legal position. With the above observation, this writ appeal is rejected. --- *** --- .