JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition has been filed to allow the petitioner to engage an advocate to contest the dispute pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, BBSR. 2. The fact of the case is that the petitioner who was working as Senior Technician, Kiriburu Iron Ore Mines of Steel Authority of India and as such member of NMDC Mine workers Union of Rajbhawan through Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour referred an industrial dispute between the delinquent employee and the management of Kiriburu Iron Ore Mine of SAIL to the Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad which was registered as I.D. Case No.178 of 2000. 3. The petitioner had made representation before the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour to transfer Industrial Dispute Case No.178 of 2000 from Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court of Dhanbad to the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar which was approved and accordingly the I.D. Case was transferred to the C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, BBSR which has been registered as I.D. Case No.18 of 2007 which is pending for adjudication as on the date when the writ petition was filed. 4. The petitioner has made a prayer before the C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, BBSR in his petition dated 06.08.2007 that he being illiterate is not able to conduct his case properly since the dispute involves substantial question of law. So, he prayed to engage an advocate to conduct his case in the interest of justice. 5. The C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar vide order No.12 dated 14.7.2008 observed that the workman concerned files a petition to conduct the case himself or through an advocate. The management objected to the engagement of advocate, as such the workman allowed to conduct the case himself for the interest of justice. Copy of the order dated 14.7.2008 has been annexed as Annexure-2. 6. It is the further case of the petitioner that Section 36(4) of the I.D. Act provides that in any proceeding before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal a party to a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner with the consent of other parties to the proceeding and with the leave of Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be. It is the further case that when the case was continuing in the C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad the Tribunal passed order No.2 dated 23.8.2000 in the I.D. Case No.178 of 2000 and the industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad had allowed the engagement of Law Officer of the company in place of General Manager. In this pretext, the order of refusing to engage legal practitioner by the C.G.I.T is not proper and legal. 7. The learned counsel representing the Central Govt. has submitted that the provision of Section 36(4) is very clear which contains a provision that in any proceeding before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, a party to a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner with the consent of the other parties to the proceeding and with the leave of Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be. Since the application to that effect had been opposed by other side as such the Tribunal after taking into consideration the provision of Section 36(4) has rightly been refused which needs no interference by this Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. The dispute is of the year 2000 and the application filed under Section 36(4) of the I.D. Act was dated 14.7.2008 which although has not been challenged but the prayer has been made to allow the petitioner to be represented through the counsel. 9. We have found that there is no interim order passed in this case, hence there is every likelihood that I.D. Case will on advance stage as would be evident from the order 14.7.2008. From perusal it transpires that the case was fixed for the evidence of the management on 27.8.2008. 10. 9. We have found that there is no interim order passed in this case, hence there is every likelihood that I.D. Case will on advance stage as would be evident from the order 14.7.2008. From perusal it transpires that the case was fixed for the evidence of the management on 27.8.2008. 10. So far as legal issue is concerned, this Court has decided the same in the case of M/s. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. P.O., Labour Court and another in W.P.(C) No.13843 of 2016 by pronouncing the judgment on 10.8.2016 therein this Court after taking into consideration the judgment rendered by this Court in M/s. Orissa Ceramic Industries Ltd. vs. GS, Orissa CW Union, 1973 Lab.I.C. 622, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs. Their Workmen, reported in AIR 1977 SC 36 , the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Prasar Bharathi Broadcasting Corporation of India vs. Suraj Pal Sharma and another reported in 1999 (1) LLJ 1306 and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab-Haryana High Court in the case of M/s. Hygienic Foods Malerkotla vs. Jasbir Singh and others passed in LPA No.250 of 2009 in C.W.P. No.4322 of 2007 decided on 13.11.2009 by its Full Bench, has given finding that in view of impediment in engaging legal practitioner as provided under Section 36(4) of the I.D. Act, 1947, no legal practitioner can be engaged without consent of the other side and with the leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal. 11. In view of the judgment rendered by us in the case of M/s. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra), we dispose of the writ petition by holding therein that the decision of the C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, BBSR in rejecting the plea of the petitioner to engage an advocate suffers from no infirmity. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.