JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, A.C.J. 1. The controversy raised in this case turns on the interpretation of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') The moot question for consideration is whether the Industrial Tribunal was right in rejecting permission sought by the petitioner-company to be represented through Shri Prafulla Kumar Mohanty. 2. In the writ application the petitioner-company has prayed for quashing the order of the Tribunal dated 26-9-1994 (Annexure 1) rejecting the authorisation in Form 'C' executed in favour of Shri P. K. Mohanty. The reason for rejection is stated in the following terms: "Admittedly, Shri Mohanty is not falling within the category of 'Officer' described in Section 36(2) of the I.D. Act. According to the ratio, as aforesaid, the management is legally competent to appear and participate in the proceeding through an officer or employee working under it. in this case there is no evidence worth the name to show or suggest that Shri Mohanty is an officer/employee in the pay roll of the management. Giving of some legal advice does not make him an employee under the management. Under such circumstances the authorisation in 'C form executed in favour of Shri P. K. Mohanty is not accepted." The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Paradip Port Trust, Paradip Vs. Their Workmen, . 3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the point may be stated thus : In the 'G' Form submitted by the petitioner it was stated that Shri P. K. Mohanty is the Labour Advisor of the Company and, therefore, is entitled to represent the management in the case. The Tribunal initially did not accept the authorisation in favour of Shri P. K. Mohanty in the order dated 15-7-1994 holding that he is a legal practitioner and the Workers' Association opposes his representation. Subsequently, the Workers' Association having conceded that Shri P. K. Mohanty is neither a lawyer nor a registered legal practitioner the Tribunal reconsidered the matter and passed the order as per Annexure 1 of refusing representation for the reasons stated earlier. Therefore, the question is whether the petitioner-company is entitled to be represented by Shri P. K. Mohanty u/s 36(2) of the Act. 4. Since the case turns on interpretation of the provisions in Section 36 it will be convenient to quote the section : "36. Therefore, the question is whether the petitioner-company is entitled to be represented by Shri P. K. Mohanty u/s 36(2) of the Act. 4. Since the case turns on interpretation of the provisions in Section 36 it will be convenient to quote the section : "36. Representation of parties : (1) A workman who is a party to a dispute shall be excluded to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by : (a) any member of the executive or other office bearer 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 union 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 any member of the executive or other office bearer of any trade union connected with, or by any other workman employed in, the industry in which the worker is employed and authorised in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) An employer who is a party to the dispute shall be entitled to be represented in 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 or association of employers to which the association referred to in Clause (a) is affiliated; (c) where 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 proceedings under this Act or in any proceedings before a Court. (4) In any proceeding before a Labour Court, the Tribunal or National Tribunal, a party to a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner with the contest of the other parties to the proceedings and with the leave of the Labour Court. Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be." From the provisions in Sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 36. Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be." From the provisions in Sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 36. It is manifest that no party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any proceeding before Labour Court or Tribunal without the consent of the other party to the proceeding. Shri P. K. Mohanty is concededly not a legal practitioner : therefore the bar under Sub-section (3) and the requirement of consent of the other party under Sub-section (4) do not apply to him. The question that remains to be considered is whether the employer (petitioner-company) is entitled to be represented by him under Sub-section (2) of Section 36. Undisputedly, Shri P. K. Mohanty is neither an officer of an association of employers nor an officer of an association of employers of which the employer is a member nor is he an officer of any association of employers connected with or by another employer engaged in the Industry in which the petitioner is engaged. As such Sub-section (2) also does not apply in the case of Shri P. K. Mohanty. As held by the Supreme Court in Paradip Port Trust, Paradip Vs. Their Workmen. Section 36 is not exhaustive of all persons by whom an employer or an employee may be represented in a proceeding before the Labour Court/Tribunal. Therein the Apex Court ruled : "A lawyer, simpliciter, cannot appear before an Industrial Tribunal without the consent of the opposite party and leave of the Tribunal marely by virtue of a power of attorney execu-the by a party. A lawyer can appear before the Tribunal in the capacity of an office-bearer of a registered trade union or an officer of association of employers, and no consent of the other side and leave of the Tribunal will, then be necessary. Section 36 is not exhaustive but only supplemental to any other lawful mode of representation of petition. The parties, however, will have to conform to the condition laid down in Section 36(4) in the matter of representation by legal practitioner. Section 36 is not exhaustive but only supplemental to any other lawful mode of representation of petition. The parties, however, will have to conform to the condition laid down in Section 36(4) in the matter of representation by legal practitioner. Both the consent of the opposite party and the leave of the Tribunal will have to be secured to enable a party to seek representation before the Tribunal through a legal practitioner qua legal practitioner..................The fact that a person is a legal practitioner will not affect the position if the qualifications specified in Section 36(1) and Section 36(2) are fulfilled by him. 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." (quoted from placitum) In that case the Supreme Court approved the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in K.K. Khadilkar Vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. and Another. The Bombay High Court dealing with the question of representation u/s 36(2) had observed; "The provisions contained in Section 36(2) are not exhaustive of the right of an employer to be represented in a proceeding under the Act. These clauses are devised merely to create an unluclified right in an employer to be represented by a class of persons. They do not take away his right to be represented in any other lawful manner. It is, therefore, open to an employer to seek to be represented in a proceeding under the Act by a person other than those mentioned in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (2). The exercise of this right is however, subject to the discretion of the authority concerned to deny to a particular person the right of audience. This discretion which flows from Section 11 of the Act, which gives to the Tribunal the right to regulate its procedure must of course be used judicially. The exercise of this right is however, subject to the discretion of the authority concerned to deny to a particular person the right of audience. This discretion which flows from Section 11 of the Act, which gives to the Tribunal the right to regulate its procedure must of course be used judicially. An employer-company can therefore, be represented in a proceeding under the Act by a duly authorised agent, subject to the discretion of the Authority concerned." (Quoted from placitum) This Court in OJC No 3652 of 1989 (P. Adinarayan Reddy v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Ors.) disposed of on 16-5-1990 has also taken the view that if either the workman or the employer would require to be represented in some other manner otherwise than provided in Section 36, the authorities are not deprived of their jurisdiction to deal with the question, consider the same and grant permission in accordance with exigencies of the situation. 5. From the ratio in the aforementioned decided cases the position is clear that while examining an application for representation the Tribunal is not only to consider whether the person concerned comes within the class of persons enumerated in Sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 36 but it is also to consider whether he is a person who is otherwise competent to represent the empployer or employee as the case may be. At the cost of repetition it may be stated here that the Tribunal/Court should bear in mind that the only statutory bar in the matter is that a person qua a legal practitioner cannot represent a party without consent of the other party. 6. Coming to the facts of the case in hand, as noted earlier, Shri P. K. Mohanty is not a legal practitioner. The petitioner company filed the application for representation in Form G stating that he is the Labour Advisor of the Company. It is averred in the writ application that Shri R. K. Mohanty was a trade, union leader who is now engaged in advising parties in Labour matters and has considerable experience in dealing with labour disputes in Courts and Tribunals. He has been duly authorised by the company to represent it in the case. It is averred in the writ application that Shri R. K. Mohanty was a trade, union leader who is now engaged in advising parties in Labour matters and has considerable experience in dealing with labour disputes in Courts and Tribunals. He has been duly authorised by the company to represent it in the case. Testing his eligibility to represent the company in the light of the principles enunciated in the aforementioned decided cases, the position is clear to us that the company is entitled to be represented by Shri P. K. Mohanty. The Tribunal was clearly in error in rejecting the application for representation on the ground that he was not an officer or an employee working under it or in its pay roll. 7. In the result, the writ application is allowed; the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 26-9-1994 in I. D. Case No. 42/91 is quashed. It is held that the petitioner-company is entitled to be represented in the case by Shri P. K. Mohanty. The Tribunal will pass an order to this effect and thereafter proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law. There will be no order for cost of this preceding. R.K. Dash, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Allowed