JUDGMENT : K.R. Mohapatra, J. - Heard Mr. N. C. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate for Opposite Party No. 1 and Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2-Workers' Union. 2. The Management of Mahanadi Coal fields Ltd., Ib Valley Area, Brajrajnagar, has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 24-08-2001 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (for short, 'CGIT') in Tr. I.D. Case No. 97 of 2001, whereby an application filed by the Management-petitioner to grant permission to be represented by a Legal Practitioner was rejected. 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts for adjudication of this case are as follows: The Brajranjagar Coal fields Workers' Union (for short 'the Workers' Union') had raised dispute before the Conciliation Officer with regard to regularization of 60 (sixty) contract labourers, who were engaged in permanent and perennial nature of work for more than ten years, under the Management-petitioner. Conciliation being failed, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela and registered as I.D. Case No.24 of 1999 (C). Subsequently, it was transferred to the learned CGIT in Tr. I.D. Case No.97 of 2004. Before the learned CGIT, the Workers' Union was being represented by Sri Debendra Mohanta, a Legal Practitioner of the High Court of Orissa, in the capacity of Vice-President of the Workers' Union. Hence, the Management-petitioner had filed a petition on 16.07.2001 (Annexure-1) before the CGIT to be represented by a Legal Practitioner as per the provision of Section 36(4) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the I.D. Act'). It was stated, inter alia in the petition that, since Mr. Mohanta, a seasoned legal practitioner of High Court of Orissa is representing the Workers' Union, the Management-petitioner should be permitted to be represented through a Legal Practitioner. The Workers' Union had filed objection to the said petition contending inter alia that Mr. Mohanta was representing as Vice-President of the Workers' Union and not in the capacity of a Legal Practitioner. Hence, the ground on which permission of the learned CGIT is sought for engaging a Legal Practitioner should not be accepted. As such, they prayed for rejection of the petition under Annexure- 1. 4. Mohanta was representing as Vice-President of the Workers' Union and not in the capacity of a Legal Practitioner. Hence, the ground on which permission of the learned CGIT is sought for engaging a Legal Practitioner should not be accepted. As such, they prayed for rejection of the petition under Annexure- 1. 4. Learned CGIT taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties held that when the Union has objected for engagement of an Advocate by the Management, petition filed by the Management to grant leave of the Tribunal for engagement of an Advocate to defend their case stands rejected. Assailing the said order, dated 24.08.2001, this writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr. N.C. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 36(4) of the I.D. Act provides that in any proceeding before the learned Labour Court or the Tribunal a party to a dispute may be represented by a Legal Practitioner with consent of the other party to the proceeding and with the leave of the Labour Court and Tribunal, as the case may be. Since, the Workers' Union has already been represented by a seasoned Legal Practitioner having specialty in the field of Labour Laws, learned CGIT should have permitted the Management-petitioner to be represented by a Legal Practitioner of its choice. Learned CGIT, without assigning any cogent reason, rejected the petition under Annexure-1 only on flimsy ground that the Workers' Union had objection to such representation. It is his submission that the objection raised by the Workers' Union would not hold good, inasmuch as it is being represented by a seasoned Legal Practitioner of High Court of Orissa having specialty in Labour Laws. He, therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order under Annexures-1 and 2 and for permiting the Management-petitioner to engage a Legal Practitioner of its choice. 6. Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the opposite parties stoutly denied contention raised by Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Dhal strenuously argued that there is no restriction for appointment of a Legal Practitioner as an Office bearer of Workers' Union. In the case at hand, Mr. Mohanta, is an office bearer of the Workers' Union as its Vice-President and thus, he can appear for the Workers' Union. The Management-petitioner is also being represented by its legal Manager, who is a graduate in law and is being assisted by a battery of Legal Assistants. In the case at hand, Mr. Mohanta, is an office bearer of the Workers' Union as its Vice-President and thus, he can appear for the Workers' Union. The Management-petitioner is also being represented by its legal Manager, who is a graduate in law and is being assisted by a battery of Legal Assistants. Thus, the learned CGIT has rightly rejected the petition filed by the Management-petitioner taking into consideration the objection raised by the Workers' Union. He, therefore prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is clear that the Workers' Union is being represented by Mr. D. Mohanta, who is a Legal Practitioner and has specialty in Labour Law. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen, reported in AIR 1977 SC 36 had the occasion to deal with right of the Legal Practitioners to represent the employers before the learned Industrial Tribunal, that too only with the consent of the opposite party and leave of the Tribunal. It has been held therein that the restriction is limited in its scope and impact and same is not violative of the right of the Legal Practitioners as provided under section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Further, in the case of N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India, reported in AIR 2012 SC 1310 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the provision of Section 36(4) of the I.D. Act to be intra vires. However, there is no absolute bar for the Legal Practitioner to represent a party before the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal. It is subject to the restrictions provided under Section 36(4) of the I.D. Act. Thus, the Labour Court or Tribunal, while dealing with a petition filed by a party to the reference for being represented by a Legal Practitioner, should take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and pass a reasoned order. It being an equitable relief, learned Labour Court/Tribunal should always try to maintain a balance in the matter of representation of parties. At times, assistance of a Legal Practitioner becomes inevitable to interpret an intricate provision of law and assist the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to come to a just conclusion. 8. In the case at hand, the Workers' Union is being represented by Mr. At times, assistance of a Legal Practitioner becomes inevitable to interpret an intricate provision of law and assist the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to come to a just conclusion. 8. In the case at hand, the Workers' Union is being represented by Mr. D. Mohanta in the capacity of its Vice-President, who is none other than a seasoned Practitioner of this Court having specialty in Labour Laws. Thus, possibility of putting the Management-petitioner in a difficult position while interpreting the provisions of law, cannot be ruled out. Thus, in order to maintain equity, learned CGIT ought to have allowed the prayer of the Management-petitioner for being represented by a Legal Practitioner. Even otherwise, the impugned order under Annexure-2 is a non-speaking order. 9. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to set aside the impugned order Annexure-2 and permit the Management-petitioner to be represented by a Legal Practitioner of its choice. 10. This Court while issuing notice in the matter, vide order, dated 06.09.2001 passed in Misc. Case No. 11543 of 2001, has directed stay of further proceedings in Tr. I.D. Case No. 97 of 2001 pending before the Presiding Officer, CGIT until further orders. The said order is still in force. Thus, taking into consideration that the reference is of the year 1999 and is pending before the learned CGIT since 2001, this Court, while vacating the interim order, directs learned CGIT to permit the Management-petitioner to engage an Advocate of its choice and answer the reference, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to co-operate learned CGIT for early disposal of the matter. 11. The Writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs. 12. Issue urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Final Result : Allowed