COMMON ORDER The petitioner in these writ petitions, claim to be the General Secretary of the Co- operative Industrial Workers’ Union with Registration No. 85/TVM. 2. The petitioner filed claim petitions before the Labour Court claiming certain amounts from various employers on behalf of certain workmen. The petitioner filed the Claim Petitions as an authorised representative of those workmen and such a provision is contemplated under Rule 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958. The relevant form which is prescribed is Form-M1. Though the Industrial Disputes Act provides for the authorised representative to make a claim on behalf of the workmen, a reading of Form-M1 clearly shows that the authorised representative of the workmen can make a claim only on behalf of the workmen. 3. In the present writ petitions, the Labour Court has partly rejected the claim petitions and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner himself has filed the writ petitions and his name has been shown as Mr. R. Ramachandran appearing as Party-in-Person. On being questioned as to how he can maintain the writ petitions in the absence of the aggrieved workmen, the petitioner submits that since he is entitled to file Claim Petition before the Labour Court, he can also come before this Court and challenge the order passed against various workmen. The petitioner also submits that once he is entitled to file pleadings before the Labour Court, he can also file a writ petition in this Court on the strength of the same. 4. Such a contingency can never be allowed in the light of the provisions of the Advocates Act. Under the said Act, an exclusive power to represent a party before Judicial Forums lies only with Advocates registered under the various State Bar Councils. The only exception is that the aggrieved parties can come to the Court on their own and argue their cases. In the present case, though the petitioner's name appears as Party-in-Person, he is not the actual party who is aggrieved by the various impugned orders passed by the Labour Court. Authorisation of any Trade Union representative before the Industrial Disputes Act is only for the purpose of the forum created under the Industrial Disputes Act and it cannot clothe anyone with the right to appear in other Courts including this Court. 5. Authorisation of any Trade Union representative before the Industrial Disputes Act is only for the purpose of the forum created under the Industrial Disputes Act and it cannot clothe anyone with the right to appear in other Courts including this Court. 5. In such cases, if any workman who is aggrieved by the Labour Court's order and whose cause was taken by any authorised representative, has to challenge the order of the Labour Court only in the name of the workman, otherwise it will result in even when the aggrieved worker wants it or not, the authorised representative can come before this Court. An authorised representative cannot be equated with an Assignee or a legal heir since the outcome of the case does enure to the benefit of an authorised representative as in the case of an assignee or legal heir. Only on the strength of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner cannot be allowed to file writ petitions and challenge the proceedings of the Labour Courts which were admittedly initiated on behalf of certain workmen who are said to be-alive and who are not before this Court. 6. Further, it is not a writ petition filed by any Registered Trade Union, in which the petitioner is an office bearer and the Trade Union is agitating certain matters of the Labour Court on its own right. Under those circumstances, the petitioner can be permitted as an office bearer of the said Union because the Trade Union Act provides a right for a Trade Union to sue on behalf of any workmen who are its members. The present writ petition is not filed by the Trade Union, but filed by the petitioner as party-in-person. He is not the person aggrieved by the orders of the Labour Court and no authorisation of the workmen are filed before the Court. 7. In view of the said situation, the writ petitions are totally misconceived. However, if any of the aggrieved workmen wants to challenge the orders of the Labour Court, this order will not stand in their way. In those cases, those workmen can engage a counsel or in the event of lack of affordability, approach the appropriate Legal Aid Services for nominating a counsel to challenge the orders of the Labour Court. 8. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. In those cases, those workmen can engage a counsel or in the event of lack of affordability, approach the appropriate Legal Aid Services for nominating a counsel to challenge the orders of the Labour Court. 8. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2006 to M.P. No. 1 of 2006 in W.P. Nos. 27430 to 27444 of 2006 are closed. Writ petitions dismissed.