JUDGMENT : Ku. Sanju Panda, J. - Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. In WP (C) No. 8852 of 2012 The petitioner, Bay Exploration Project, Oil India Ltd. represented through its General Manager, has filed this writ petition challenging the orders dated 21.10.2011, 26.3.2012 partly and 27.4.2012 with regard to representation of the parties passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (in short, "Tribunal") in ID Case No. 05 of 2010, vide Annexures 4, 1 and 9 respectively. In WP (C) No. 8853 of 2012 The petitioner-management has filed this writ petition challenging the orders dated 14.10.2011, 26.3.2012 partly and 27.4.2012 with regard to representation of the parties passed by the Tribunal in I.D. Case No. 4 of 2010, vide Annexures 4, 1 and 9 respectively. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is an Oil Exploration Company. To search for Hydrocarbon and/or Oil in the North East Coast, Mahanadi Basin and Andaman area, the petitioner-company has set up its base office at IDCO Tower, Bhubaneswar and registered office at Duliajan in the State of Assam. Opposite party No. 2 in both the writ petitions are workmen. The claim of the workmen is that the Management was not paying their salary regularly on various pleas. Though they were working sincerely and diligently, their services were illegally terminated with effect from 30.6.2006. To cover up their own fault, the Management of the Oil India instructed that each staff members should give a letter of undertaking stating that they did nor receive their pay at their own will and would not repeat such action in future. Being aggrieved by such action of the Management, some employees defended their regular payment through Union. The Management to desist them from union activities filed a criminal case against the workmen which is still pending. During pendency of the said case, the Management dismissed the workmen without following the principles of natural justice. It was also pleaded that the action of the Management terminating the services of the workmen comes under the definition of 'termination'. The workmen raised industrial dispute. The conciliation having been failed, the appropriate Government referred the matter to the Tribunal, Bhubaneswar for adjudication. It was also pleaded that the action of the Management terminating the services of the workmen comes under the definition of 'termination'. The workmen raised industrial dispute. The conciliation having been failed, the appropriate Government referred the matter to the Tribunal, Bhubaneswar for adjudication. The reference is as follows: Whether the action of the management of Oil India, Bhubaneswar by terminating the services of the workmen without taking disciplinary action is legal and/or justified? What relief, the workmen is entitled to? The Management filed its written statement stating that the workmen were engaged under various contractors. Since the drilling operation in Mahanadi Basin was gradually reduced, the Management proposed to transfer its employees from Bhubaneswar Office to its field Headquarters at Duliajan in the State of Assam during December, 2005. Protesting the said transfer, some of the employees stopped receiving their salary from January, 2006 onwards. After about five months, all the employees orally approached the Management to release their non-receiving salary. The Management wanted that each employee should give a letter of undertaking before receiving their salary that they did not receive their pay at their own sweet will and will not repeat such action in future. On 13.6.2006, the workmen along with some protesters gathered outside the office of the Management and demanded their arrear salary. Since employees were demanding arrear salary without complying with the conditions imposed by the Management, the Project Manager told them that the arrear salary cannot be paid to them. The workmen with other employees, who were gathered there, threatened and abused the staff of the Management. Accordingly, to maintain discipline in the work place, the Management dismissed the workmen on 30.6.2006. The said dismissal orders were sent to the workmen by registered post with AD enclosing cheques towards their unpaid salary, leave wages, etc. Since the workmen did not receive the same, on 15.11.2006 there was a paper publication in the daily newspaper "The Sambad" intimating the workmen to receive their salary. All the employees received their salary on 16.11.2007. On coming to know about their dismissal from service, they raised an industrial dispute before the Tribunal. On receiving notice, the Management appeared and filed its written statement. All the employees received their salary on 16.11.2007. On coming to know about their dismissal from service, they raised an industrial dispute before the Tribunal. On receiving notice, the Management appeared and filed its written statement. The learned Tribunal framed an issue on 6.1.2011 and also an additional issue, i.e. whether the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 were not followed by the 1st management while dismissing the service with effect from 30.6.2006. If so, whether they are entitled to the benefits of this provision? Subsequently, one Sri N.R. Mallick, a dismissed workman of the Management styling himself to be the President of Mahanadi Petroleum Exploration Union, represented the workmen without filing Form-F as required under law. Since the said representation is contrary to the settled position of law, the Management filed an application for debarring said Sri Mallick to represent the Workmen. Ultimately, the said petition of the Management was rejected by the learned Tribunal by orders dated 21.10.2011 and 14.10.2011 with an observation that the services of the workmen have been kept suspended by order of the Court. Since the authorized representative of Management could not afford time to handle the aforesaid I.D. Case, the Management appointed Shri Raghunath Rath, Labour Law Consultant to handle the said case. Shri Rath appeared in the said case as, an authorized representative on 20.3.2012 and the Management filed a petition through him to accord permission to it to lead evidence on merit to substantiate its action in dismissing the workmen for misconduct. On 22.3.2012, the authorized representative of the workmen filed objection to the said petition dated 20.3.2012 on the ground that the Legal Practitioner is not an officer as defined u/s 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short, "the Act"). 2. While the matter stood thus, the authorized representative of the Management on 22.3.2012 filed an application to recast the issues settled on 6.1.2011 and objection was notified on the said petition by 26.3.2012. 2. While the matter stood thus, the authorized representative of the Management on 22.3.2012 filed an application to recast the issues settled on 6.1.2011 and objection was notified on the said petition by 26.3.2012. The learned Tribunal on 26.3.2012 allowed the said petition coming to the conclusion that Shri Rath being a Legal Practitioner cannot come under the provisions as enshrined u/s 36(2) of the Act and held that Shri Rath representing on behalf of the Management is not competent and lawful in accordance with the provision of Section 36(2) of the I.D. Act and since in the said objection the competency of the workmen's representative was also challenged, the Tribunal further held that in view of its earlier order dated 21.10.2011 it cannot order that Sri Mallick is incompetent to represent-the workmen before the learned Tribunal, unless it is nullified by any higher court and posted the matter to 22.3.2012 for hearing the petition regarding recasting of issues and ultimately the said petition was allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated 28.4.2012. The Management filed a petition for modification/clarification of the said order dated 26.3.2012. Finally, on 27.4.2012 the Tribunal rejected the said petition with an observation that the Tribunal has no power under the Industrial Disputes Act to review its own order. It was further observed in the said rejection order that it may be true that the provisions of Section 36(2) of the I.D. Act are not exhaustive, but the Management has not made out any case that Sri Rath is appearing only in the case of Oil India Ltd. and has been exclusively appointed as the Legal Adviser of that Company. He himself admitted that he is appearing in a number of cases before the Tribunal as well as State Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court and this shows that he is a legal practitioner and working as a professional in Labour Law Cases. As such, there is no denial in the reply to the objection of the 2nd party workman dated, 21.3.2012 that Shri Rath is a Legal Practitioner. Hence these writ petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 21.10.2011 is liable to be set aside as Sri Mallick is a dismissed employee of Oil India. Therefore, he cannot represent the disobedient workmen. Hence these writ petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 21.10.2011 is liable to be set aside as Sri Mallick is a dismissed employee of Oil India. Therefore, he cannot represent the disobedient workmen. In support of his contention, he has cited a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Staff Association and another Vs. State Bank of India and others, . 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2-workmen in both the writ petitions, has first raised the question of maintainability of the writ petitions as the petitioner-management challenges three interlocutory orders in a single writ petition. He submitted that the order dated 21.10.2011 was not challenged by the management within the statutory period. Therefore, the order passed on 26.3.2012 by the Tribunal debarring Sri. Rath to participate in the proceeding on behalf of the management is not maintainable. However, instead of challenging the order dated 26.3.2012 the management has filed an application for modification of the said order knowing fully well that the Tribunal has no power to modify its own order; rather it has only power to correct the typographical error, if any, in the order. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the said application vide order dated 27.4.2012. As three orders are not co-related, it cannot be challenged in a single writ petition. He further submitted that the order dated 21.10.2011 in which the Tribunal has rejected the application of the Management is just and proper, as the representative of the workmen Sri Mallick was the elected President of Mahanadi Petroleum Exploration Union. He was the elected President of the workers' Union as well as an employee under the Management even though he was dismissed by the Management from service and the said dismissal order was stayed in WP(C) No. 6413 of 2004. In the said order, it was observed that he should be treated to be under suspension. Therefore, he cannot be treated to be an employee as he was no more an employee of the Management. So far as Sri. Mallick is concerned, it was submitted that he is an outsider and he is not connected with the Management. Therefore, when he filed Form-F to represent the Management, the workmen raised objection. Therefore, he cannot be treated to be an employee as he was no more an employee of the Management. So far as Sri. Mallick is concerned, it was submitted that he is an outsider and he is not connected with the Management. Therefore, when he filed Form-F to represent the Management, the workmen raised objection. Accordingly, the impugned orders were passed debarring him to represent the Management which need not be interfered with. 5. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and for better appreciation of the matter, Section 36(1) & (2) of the Act is extracted below: 36. Representation of parties-- (1) A workman who is a party to dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by-- (a) [any member of the executive or 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 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, 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 authorized in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) An employer who is a parry to a 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 of 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 authorized in such manner as may be prescribed. xxx xxx xxx 6. In view of the above provision, Sri Rath does not come under any of the categories as stipulated u/s 36(2) of the Act as per the materials available on record. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned orders. 7. xxx xxx xxx 6. In view of the above provision, Sri Rath does not come under any of the categories as stipulated u/s 36(2) of the Act as per the materials available on record. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned orders. 7. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of State Bank of India Staff Association and another (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the representative of the workmen is still in service and he has not been removed from service. So far as Sri Mallick to represent the workmen is concerned, since he is the elected President of the Union, he is coming u/s 36(1) of the Act. As regards objection raised by opposite party No. 2-workmen in both the writ petitions that the three interlocutory orders, i.e., 21.10.2011, 26.3.2012 and 27.4.2012 have been challenged in one writ petition and since they are inter-connected and arising out of one proceeding and parties are also same, there is no bar to challenge all the orders in one writ petition as provided under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the objection raised by opposite party No. 2-workmen in both the writ petitions is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. Final Result : Disposed Off