ORDER : S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. The petitioner - Association of Gujarat Employer has approached this Court challenging the order dated 09/09/2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara where under the application Exh.34 and Exh.17 seeking permission to represent the said company call-Meghmani Organics Chemicals Limited, is rejected. The petitioner is an association of Gujarat Employers and in that capacity wanted to represent their member call-Meghmani Organics Chemicals Limited, which is also member of that association in the reference stated in the impugned order. Application at Exh.34 and Exh.17 in the respective references were filed seeking permission to represent the said employer through their office bearers Shri Nanavati. The request for representation through Shri Nanavati was made on the basis of his being office bearer of this association and as such he was also primary member of the association. The industrial Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court reported in 1994 (2) LLJ 326 held that as the petitioner association cannot be said to be purely an association of employer, the permission to represent Meghmani Organics Chemicals Limited cannot be granted to its office bearers which is admittedly not an employer. 2. Shir Vasavda, learned Advocate for the petitioner has fairly conceded that said Shri Nanavati who is sought to be appointed on behalf of Meghmani Organics Chemicals Limited is not an employer and he is a legal consultant by profession, but he is holding office in this association and as officer bearer of association his appointment was sought for representing Meghmani Organics Chemicals Limited. He is a legal consultant in this association and in his such capacity he is also holding office which is based upon his primary membership in the said association. In short, Mr.Vasavda, did not dispute the fact that the person who was named for representing Meghmani Organics Chemicals Limited was not an employer, yet he was holding primary membership of the petitioner association and was also holding post of Vice President of the association of the employer. Mr. Vasavda, contended that Vice President need not be an employer and as he is holding primary membership in the petitioner association, though he is a legal consultant, is entitled to be nominated to represent the members in the labour cases. 3. Mr. Vasavda, contended that Vice President need not be an employer and as he is holding primary membership in the petitioner association, though he is a legal consultant, is entitled to be nominated to represent the members in the labour cases. 3. This Court is unable to accept the submission of Shri Vasavda, as there is clear finding recorded by the Court that the present petitioner association has as it is member, the persons who are admittedly not employers and therefore such an association cannot be classified to be an employers association so as to get right to represent their members' cases in labour disputes and forums. This reasoning is based upon the decision of this Court reported in 1994 (2) LLJ 326 . Shri Vasavda, could not point any other authority indicating that non-employer also could be a member of employer's association and in that whether he gets right to represent its member in legal disputes. It is required to be noted that the legal consultant who is not an employer has been holding primary membership of the association and by virtue of that he has also held office of Vice President, that in itself would not be sufficient for him to have right to represent the members in the legal dispute. Moreover, because he has also held primary membership and some of the primary members who are not capable of being classified by as employer has taken away, its characteristic of employers association so as to claim any right for representing their members in legal dispute. The decision as stated herein above is on all fours applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner association has also as non-employer on its primary membership role, the characteristic of employers association is not the association which can be said to be an association of employer so as to claim any right to represent the member. 4. In view of this, petition is bereft of merits and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.