JUDGMENT : Mr. Vivek Rusia, J. 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2017, by which permission to engage a counsel to defend in the labour Court has been rejected because the workmen has refused to give the consent. 2. This issue came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.6445/2015 and vide order dated 02.11.2015 this Court has held that the Advocate cannot be engaged by the employer unless the workmen give a consent. 3. Judgment passed in W.P.No.6445/2015 on 02.11.2015 is reproduced below: "W.P.No. 6445 of 2015 02.11.2015 Parties through their counsel. Petitioners before this Court have filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2015 by which the presiding officer, labour court has rejected the prayer of the petitioners (employer) to engage a legal counsel (advocate). Undisputed facts of the case reveals that the petitioner was transferred by the employer and thereafter, the respondent employee has sought shelter of the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and finally, a reference was made to the labour court in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act'1947. The reference was made on 21.07.2014. The employer submitted an application for engaging a counsel and the application was rejected on 05.02.2015. The employer has again preferred another application and the same was again turned down on 12.08.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued before this Court that by virtue of Section 30 of the Advocates Act,1961, an advocate is entitled to practise anywhere before any forum and his contention is that by virtue of Section 30 of the Advocates Act,1961, the application preferred by the employer should have been allowed. He has placed reliance upon a judgment dated 15.02.2012 delivered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Mohan Madhukar Sudame v. State of Maharashtra (W.P. No.3107 of 1994) and he has also placed reliance upon another judgment dated 19th July, 2011 delivered by the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in the case of C.P. Saji v. Union of India and other (W.P (C) 18334 of 201(N). His contention is that keeping in view of the aforesaid judgments, the application should have been allowed by the labour court. His contention is that keeping in view of the aforesaid judgments, the application should have been allowed by the labour court. On the other hand, the workman appearing in person has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment dated 12.01.2011 delivered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Uttam Kumar Pardasani v. M/s. Petcare Divin of Tetragon P. Ltd. In SLP No.25777/2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the workman and perused the record. It is an undisputed fact that a reference has been made keeping in view Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 to the labour court and the same is pending for adjudication. First application for engaging the counsel has been turned down on 05.02.2015 and thereafter, another application was preferred and the same has also been turned down by the labour on 12.08.2015. Section 36 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 reads as under: "36. Representation of parties.- (1) A workman who is a party to a 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 authorised in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) An employer who is a party 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 authorised in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) No party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings under this Act or in any proceedings before a Court. (4) 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 the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be]." The aforesaid statutory provisions of law makes it clear that a legal practitioner cannot be appointed by a party without the consent of the other party. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance upon Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the same reads as under:- ""30. Right of advocates to practise." "Subject to provisions of this Act, every advocate whose name is entered in the [State roll] shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout the territories to which this Act extends," (i) in all courts including the Supreme Court; (ii) before any tribunal or person legally authorised to take evidence; and (iii) before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force entitled to practise." His contention is that by virtue of the aforesaid statutory provisions, an advocate is certainly entitled to appear before the labour court even if the workman has not consented for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance Mohan Madhukar Sudame v. State of Maharashtra and his contention is that Bombay High Court has held that "by virtue of Section 30, an advocate or lawyer is entitled to appear before all tribunals including the University and College Tribunal constituted under the Act. In the aforesaid case the statutory provisions in question was enacted by the State Government whereas in the present case, the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is the Act of Parliament and the same cannot be superseded by the Advocate Acts, 1961. In the aforesaid case the statutory provisions in question was enacted by the State Government whereas in the present case, the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is the Act of Parliament and the same cannot be superseded by the Advocate Acts, 1961. Under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, there is a categoric provision wherein it has been stated that advocates are not permitted to appear for the parties without consent of the other parties and in the present case, the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is very much applicable and, therefore, it cannot be said that the advocates are entitled to appear before the tribunal that too without consent of the parties This Court has carefully gone through the judgment delivered in the case of C.P. Saji (supra). In the aforesaid case, no specific section was dealt with by the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam as contained in Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the judgment delivered by the Kerala High Court is also of no help to the petitioners. Not only this, the Apex Court in the case of Uttam Kumar Pardasani (supra) has held that the labour court was justified in rejecting the application preferred by the employer. In the present case, the facts establish that first application of the employer was rejected 05.02.2015 and subsequently, another application was filed and the same was also dismissed by order dated 12.08.2015, meaning thereby,the employer is deliberately delaying the conclusion of the trial before the labour court. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/. The cost be deposited within a period of 30 days before the labour court and be paid to the workman in question." 4. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality committed by the labour Court, Mandsaur while rejecting the application filed by the respondent. Petition fails and is dismissed.