1. Heard the appellant and the respondent. 2. Appellants were the 28 employees of Baghjan Tea Estate - who suffered the orders of dismissal in the year 1984, are caught in a vicious circle of litigation for the past 30 years. The charge against the twenty-eight employees was that they brutally assaulted the manager of the tea estate. A domestic inquiry was held. It was found that the appellants are guilty of the charge and they were dismissed. The orders of dismissal were challenged before this court in WP(C) No. 5156/2000. The learned Single Judge confirmed the orders of dismissal. A Division Bench of this court in WA No. 271/2010 set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the Labour Court to adjudicate the matter afresh on merits. The Labour Court pursuant to the said order found that the domestic inquiry held is in accordance with law and also that the charges levelled against the appellants are proved and, thus, confirmed the orders of dismissal. Appellants aggrieved by the said order had filed a writ petition - WP(C) No. 1450/2013 - before this court. It was the contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge that the enquiry officer in the domestic inquiry is a legally-trained person. Despite repeated requests the enquiry officer did not permit the workmen to represent them by a lawyer and the order was virtually an ex parte order and that there is violation of natural justice on the part of the enquiry officer. The learned Single Judge found that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Labour Court and also found that the appellants abstained from participating in the inquiry on their own and that despite service of notice on them the demand for appointment of a lawyer was untenable and, thus, dismissed the writ petition. 3. The Labour Court while passing the award confirmed the dismissal of these appellants, and granted reinstatement of some other workmen in respect of whom there was no 'reference' under the Industrial Disputes Act. The management aggrieved by the said order had filed a writ petition - WP(C) No. 6247/2012. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition. Appellants aggrieved by the order of dismissal of WP(C) No. 1450/2013 have filed this appeal. However, there is an appeal filed against the order of allowing the writ petition of the management. The management aggrieved by the said order had filed a writ petition - WP(C) No. 6247/2012. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition. Appellants aggrieved by the order of dismissal of WP(C) No. 1450/2013 have filed this appeal. However, there is an appeal filed against the order of allowing the writ petition of the management. We think it unnecessary for these appellants to challenge that order in this appeal as they are in no way concerned with the said matter. 4. Now in this appeal the counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the enquiry officer is a legally-trained person, so it was just arid necessary in law that the workmen were permitted to engage a lawyer to pursue their defence. This contention is untenable, because the decision of the Supreme Court in V. Mathivanan v. State Bank of India, (2008) 4 SCC 406 laid down the proposition that when the management has availed of itself the assistance of a lawyer for presenting its case the workmen should not be denied the benefit of a legal assistant. Here in this case, the management has not availed of itself the benefit of a legal assistant to present its case. If the enquiry officer is a legally-trained person it will not amount to violation of natural justice. Appellants have no right to insist for appointing a lawyer to present their case. That apart in earlier writ petition - WP(C) No. 5156/2000 - this point was not taken up. In fact the appellants could have availed the opportunity of giving evidence before the Labour Court if they have not led evidence before the domestic enquiry and that opportunity has not been availed. In the earlier writ petition this point was never urged. There the challenge was on different grounds. Therefore, at this stage they cannot raise new points. On overall consideration there appears to be no merit on the point urged by the counsel for the appellant. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.