ORDER Hari Swarup, J. - This petition is directed against order of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court holding that the three persons Sarvasri R. S. Kela, P. N. Kapoor and S. V. Singhal were entitled to represent the employer in proceedings before the Labour Court arising on a reference under S. 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The objection raised by the employees was that they were not entitled to represent the employer as they were not the representatives contemplated by S. 6-I of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act read with rule 40 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules. The Labour Court has held that they were Officers within the meaning of R. 40 (1) (ii) (c) of the Rules. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the finding is erroneous in law as the necessary ingredients which make an "officer" have not been found as existing to permit these three persons to represent the employer. In support of his contention learned counsel relied on observations in the case of Sarbeshwar Bardoloi v. U.K. Gohain, AIR 1955 Assam 148. It was a case of a legal practitioner. The Court directed the Labour Court first to decide whether he was an officer of the concern or not. Both the learned Judges were of the opinion that even a legal practitioner can be an officer. Ram Labhaya. J., held that for being an officer he must be a regular officer of the employers' Association. According to him: "While a legal adviser of an association may possibly be an officer, it cannot be stated as a matter of law that every legal practitioner who is a legal adviser of an association, becomes an officer of the association. The appointment of a legal adviser can be of a casual nature. Where such is the case, he would generally not be an officer of the association. On the other hand, duties may be assigned to a legal practitioner which may invest him with the status or the position of an officer of the company or association." Deka. J., was of the opinion: "The legal advisers may not necessarily be officers of their clients. Holding of office would primarily indicate some sort of official responsibilities than that of a law adviser. J., was of the opinion: "The legal advisers may not necessarily be officers of their clients. Holding of office would primarily indicate some sort of official responsibilities than that of a law adviser. Either he (the officer) must have some stake in the company or concern, some pay or remuneration attached to the office, terms of appointment or discharge, period or tenure of appointment, or some administrative responsibilities, or obligation to render some explanation for his conduct in discharge of his duties." The learned Judges were considering whether a lawyer could be an officer when the engagement of a legal practitioner as such was not permitted by law. They have however not laid down any exhaustive rule as to when a lawyer can be deemed to be an "officer of a concern". 3. In the present case, the three persons were not legal practitioners. The Labour Court has found that the three persons were part-time employees (Labour Officers) to perform intermittent duties if and when required. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the statement of one of the partners of the employer firm. He stated that these three persons were officers of the concern and were paid monthly remuneration. The payment of monthly remuneration is sufficient to indicate the employment of the persons in the concern. Whole time employment is not necessary for a person being an officer within the meaning of R. 40 which provides that an employer can be represented by an "officer of the concern". 4. The term 'officer of the concern' has not been defined either in the Act or the Rules. Officer normally means a person who holds some office. According to the quotations given in the Law Lexi con of British India compiled and edited by P. Ramanatha Aiyar at page -901 the word 'office' means: "Office. That function by virtue there of a man hath some employment in the affairs of another, as of the king, or of another person. (Cromwell, Tomlin's Law Dic.), An office is 'the right to exercise a public or private employment, and take the fees and emoluments thereunto belonging whether public, as those of magistrates, or private, as of bailiffs, receivers,' etc. (RI. Coin.)." An office may be of different characters. A person who is employed on monthly wages to render legal assistance to a concern can also be an officer of the concern. (RI. Coin.)." An office may be of different characters. A person who is employed on monthly wages to render legal assistance to a concern can also be an officer of the concern. Rule 40 of the Industrial Disputes Rules may be taken to draw a distinction between the employees who may be categorised as officers and those who may not be so categorised. An officer will normally be an employee who may he entrusted) with a job which may carry with it the' responsibility and the power or authority) to take decisions and act according to their volition. A person who renders legal assistance normally applies his own mind and takes his own decisions in rendering legal assistance. If such a person is in the regular employment of a concern, though his services be needed only on occasions, he would be deemed to be an 'officer of the concern'. The concern in the present case is a partnership concern and thus cannot have any statutory offices to give its employees the status of a statutory officer. Hence persons who render service to the concern on monthly payment will be its officers if in the course of rendering that service they have to exercise their own mind and discretion. The persons appointed to represent the employer in the present case, according to the evidence, render legal assistance to the concern whenever it is needed, and they are paid monthly remuneration. The Labour Court cannot accordingly be held to have committed any manifest error of law in giving its finding that these three persons were 'officers of the concern' and' thus entitled to represent the employer in the proceedings before the Labour Court. The petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case. there will be no order as to costs.