ORDER The petitioner-Globe Theatre Private Limited is a company under the Indian Companies Act having its branch office nod Cinema Hall at 7E, Lindsay Street, Calcutta. The company was engaged mainly In exhibiting cinema films in its Cinema Hall In Calcutta by the name -Globe By an agreement dated 3rd April. 1970 the management of the petitioner company was transferred to M/s. 20th Century Fox Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. and upon transfer of the management, some of the employees including the respondent no.3 were terminated on the bash of the agreement referred to above. Though the respondent no. 3 said to be not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but compensation in accordance with the provisions of s.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was duly paid and accepted by the respondent no.3 After however, acceptance of the compensation under s.25F of the Act the respondent no.3 raised an industrial dispute challenging the order of termination of service And by an order dated 28th of April, 1971 the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department referred the dispute under s.10 read with s.2A of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Second Labour court, West Bengal for adjudication. 2. Before the Tribunal the parties duly submitted their respective written statement The petitioner herein, however raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the respondent no.3 is not and cannot be also deemed to he a workmen, as such the question of Industrial dispute does not and Cannot arise 3. The petitioner company directed Its Labour Consultant Sri B.K. Mukherjee who is also an advocate to represent the case before the Labour Court The respondent no.3 however, objection to such a representation and the Second Labour Court upheld the objection Thereafter the petitioner company authorised one Sri K.M. Sen, Vice President of the Employers' Association to represent its case whichwas also objected by the respondent no. 3. By an order dated 25th July, 1965 being Order No 128. 3. By an order dated 25th July, 1965 being Order No 128. the Second Labour Court held that Sri K. M Sen is not an officer of the said Eastern India Motion Picture Association of which the petitioner is a member and as such it cannot be said that the representation of the company by Sri K.M. Sen is covered by s.36(2)(a), (b) and (e) of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence the company cannot be allowed to be represented through Sri K.M Seo Subsequently, a review petition was filed before the Second Labour Court, inter alia, contending that Sri K.M. Sen is a Vice. President of the Employers' Association of India and the petitioner apart from being a member of Eastern Motion Picture Association Is also a member of the Employer,' Association of India and as such In terms of provisions of s. 36(2) of the Industrial dispute, Act Sri K.M. Sen ought to be allowed to represent the Case of the company before the Second Labour Court. The review petition however, was also rejected by an order dated 30th of August, 1984 being Order No.129. It is the order of rejection of the petitioner's application for being represented by Sri K M. Sen is under challenge In this writ petition. Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides: "36 Representation of patties :-(1) A workman who Is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented In any proceeding under this. Act by- (a) any member of the executive or other office balers of a registered trade union of which he is a member; (b) any member of the executive or other office bearer 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, be any member of the executive or other office bearer of any trade union connected with, or by any other workman employed to the industry in which the worker employed and authorised In such manner as may be prescribed. (2) An employer who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented Jo any proceeding under this Act by- (a) an officer of an association of employers of which he is a member; (b) an officer of a federation of association of employers to which the association referred to in clause (a) is affiliated; (C) whore the employer is not a member of any association of employers, by an officer of any association of employers connected with, or by any other employer engaged in, the Industry in which the employer is engaged and authorised in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) No party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceeding under this Act or in any proceedings before a Court. (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 the other parties to the proceeding and with the leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be. 4. In terms of s.36 an employer who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented by an officer of an association of an employees of which he is a member. Admittedly, there is no dispute in regard to the factum of membership of the petitioner with the Employers' Association of India. 5. Pradeep Port Trust v. Their Workmen reported on 1979 (II) LLJ 409 (SC) [33 FLR (1976) 243] it is laid down by the Supreme Court that when the legal practioner appears in the capacity of an officer of the association In the case of an employer and In the capacity of office bearer of the Union of the case of Workmen and not in the capacity of a legal practitioner, the fact that the person is a legal practitioner will not affect the position If the qualifications specified in s.36(1) and (2) are fulfilled. The Supreme Court further observed- "It must be made clear that there is no scope for enquiry by the Tribunal into the motive for appointment of such legal practitioners as office bearers of the trade unions or as officers of the employers' associations When law provides for a requisite qualification for exercising a right, fulfillment of the qualification in a given case will entitle the party to be represented before the Tribunal by such a person with that qualification How and under what circumstances those qualification have been obtained will not be relevant matters for consideration by the Tribunal in considering an application for representation under s.36(1) and s.36(2) of the Act. Once the qualification under s.36(1) and s.36(2) are fulfilled prior to appearance before Tribunals there is no need under the law to pursue the matter in order to find out whether the appointments are In circumvention of s.36(4) of the Act Motive of the appointment cannot be made an issue before the Tribunal" 6. Similar view was also expressed by the Bombay High Court In the cue of A.D Sastri v. D.L Patil reported In 1975(1) LLJ 458 7. The Rajasthan High Court in the Case of Dadwalla and Co., v. Industrial Tribunal reported in 1959 (1) LLJ, 75 at page 78 observed that: "In this view of the matter the Industrial Tribunal was wrong in going into the bonafides or otherwise of Sri Nahar's appointment was circumvention of the law as laid down in sub-s.4 of s.36 As apparently Shri Nahar Is qualified under s.36(2)(a), he is entitled to appear before the Industrial Tribunal” 8. In the Case of Paper Trading Syndicate (P) Ltd. V. Fourth Industrial and Ors. this Court also negatived the objection of the concerned workmen and observed that there is no prohibition in the Statute and on proper construction of s.36 neither there is any bar for a lawyer appointed as a part-time Labour Officer to represent the employer. 9. Since the said Sri K.M. sen was one of the office bearers of the organization of which the petitioner is a member, in my view, the impugned order of rejection as contained in Order No. 128 dated 25th July 1984 cannot be sustained, and as such the same is hereby set aside and quashed. 10. 9. Since the said Sri K.M. sen was one of the office bearers of the organization of which the petitioner is a member, in my view, the impugned order of rejection as contained in Order No. 128 dated 25th July 1984 cannot be sustained, and as such the same is hereby set aside and quashed. 10. During the course of hearing It was submitted that Sri K. M Sen suddenly died on 25th of February 1985 as such the petitioner would not be able to obtain his assistance In the matter But since a long time has expired I direct the petitioner to take expeditious steps in the matter and the Tribunal is also directed to proceed in the matter on the basis of the observations made hereinabove with utmost expedition The writ petition is thus disposed on. No order is made as to costs Impugned order set aside.