JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and where under the order dtd.28.12.2017 under Annexure-8 is under challenge. 2. The brief fact of the case of the petitioner is that he is facing a departmental proceeding under the process incorporated in the bipartite settlement dtd.10.4.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a provision in the bipartite settlement under Clause No.12 that the delinquent employee is to be provided an opportunity to defend himself even by a lawyer but the same has not been allowed to be done. He submits that the other options to defend the delinquent employee provided therein, i.e. through the representative of the Registered Trade Union if the employee is not a member or through the representative of the State Federation at the request of said union or with the Bank’s permission, by a lawyer, according to the petitioner, there is no good relationship in between the petitioner and the Trade Union, as such he cannot take any aid of the Trade Union in defending himself in the departmental enquiry, as such he has sought for a permission from the Bank to allow him to be defended by a lawyer. He submits that on earlier occasion he had come to the court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No.26400 of 2017 and this court, while disposing of the writ petition vide order dtd.19.12.2017, had passed an order wherein the order dtd.2.12.2017 whereby and where under his claim for engagement of advocate to defend him in the departmental enquiry has been rejected, this court, without interfering with the earlier decision, while disposing of the writ petition has given liberty to him to file representation before the Disciplinary Authority by bringing to its notice regarding having no good relationship with the Trade Union, and if that would be done, the authority will take it into consideration. The petitioner in the light of the same has made representation but the same has been rejected vide order dtd.28.12.2017 under annexure-8 by assigning the reason that since the presenting officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is not a legal practitioner, hence the Bank cannot give permission to allow the petitioner to engage advocate to defend himself. The petitioner in the light of the same has made representation but the same has been rejected vide order dtd.28.12.2017 under annexure-8 by assigning the reason that since the presenting officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is not a legal practitioner, hence the Bank cannot give permission to allow the petitioner to engage advocate to defend himself. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said order has come before this court by way of the instant writ petition on the ground that even he is not in a position to engage any of the employee as a defending assistant since he is new in the Bank and having no good relationship with the other members of the Bank. He submits that by denying the opportunity to be defended by the advocate, his valuable right is being taken away by the disciplinary authority which is nothing but is denying the adequate and sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case before the enquiry officer. 3. The opposite party – Bank has been represented by advocate Mr. Subrat Mohanty, who, on instruction, submits that there is no illegality in the order dtd.28.12.2017 in view of the provision of the bipartite settlement which contains a provision to allow the delinquent employee to be defended by an advocate only with the permission of the bank, as such it is the discretion of the bank to allow him to be defended through an advocate. He submits that he is no way is going to be prejudiced if he will not be allowed to be defended by the advocate in view of the fact that he has been allowed to be defended by any of the employee working in the Bank if he has no good relationship with the Trade Union. He further submits that since the Disciplinary Authority is not engaging any legal practitioner to act as presenting officer, hence the bank cannot give permission to engage an advocate on behalf of the petitioner to defend his case. He further submits that since the Disciplinary Authority is not engaging any legal practitioner to act as presenting officer, hence the bank cannot give permission to engage an advocate on behalf of the petitioner to defend his case. He has taken aid of the provision of section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 wherein parameteria provision is there under Sub-section 4 providing therein that 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, and the said provision having said to be proper having not been set aside by any of the higher court, as such the provision stipulated in the bipartite settlement giving discretion upon the bank to allow the delinquent employee to be defended by the advocate cannot be said to be arbitrary. He submits that if the presenting officer would have been a legal practitioner then matter would have been different but since it is a quasi judicial proceeding, as such the presenting officer is also an employee working in the bank and thereby if the petitioner will be allowed to be defended by any of the employee working in the bank, he will not be prejudiced. He further submits that the ground taken by the petitioner that he is having no good relationship with the entire personnel of the Bank cannot be said to be a ground to give go bye to the provision of the bipartite settlement. 4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions it is evident that the petitioner is holding the post of Clerk working in the UCO Bank. He is governed by the bipartite settlement dtd.10.4.2002 so far as it relates to disciplinary action against workmen, staff and procedure thereof. The petitioner is not disputing the terms and conditions of the said bipartite settlement. It is also admitted position that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner has been initiated in terms of the provision of bipartite settlement dtd.10.4.2002 under the provision of clause 12 wherein it has been stipulated as follows:- “12. The petitioner is not disputing the terms and conditions of the said bipartite settlement. It is also admitted position that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner has been initiated in terms of the provision of bipartite settlement dtd.10.4.2002 under the provision of clause 12 wherein it has been stipulated as follows:- “12. The procedure in such cases shall be as follows:- (a) An employee against whom disciplinary action is proposed or likely to be taken shall be given a charge-sheet clearly setting forth the circumstances appearing against him and a date shall be fixed for enquiry, sufficient time being given to him to enable him to prepare and give his explanation as also to produce any evidence that he may with to tender in his defence. He shall be permitted to appear before the officer conducting the enquiry, to cross-examine any witness on whose evidence the charge rests and to examine witnesses and produce other evidence in his defence. He shall also be permitted to be defended; (i) (x) by a representative of a registered trade union of bank employees of which he is a member on the date first notified for the commencement of the enquiry. (y) Where the employee is not a member of any trade union of bank employees on the aforesaid dates by a representative of a registered trade union of employees of the bank in which he is employed; Or (ii) At the request of the said union by a representative of the state federation or all India Organization to which such union is affiliated; OR (iii) With the Bank’s permission, by a lawyer. He shall also be given a hearing as regards the nature of the proposed punishment in case any charge is established against him. Xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx” It is evident from clause 12 as quoted herein above that the delinquent employee is to be provided adequate and sufficient opportunity. He shall also be given a hearing as regards the nature of the proposed punishment in case any charge is established against him. Xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx” It is evident from clause 12 as quoted herein above that the delinquent employee is to be provided adequate and sufficient opportunity. The provision has been made to allow the delinquent employee to be defended (i) by a representative of the registered trade union of the Bank employees of which he is a member on the day first notified for the commencement of the enquiry, where the employee is not a member of any trade union of bank employees on the aforesaid date, by a representative of the registered trade union of the employees of the bank in which he is employed or at the request of the said union by a representative of the state federation or All India Organization to which such union is affiliated or with the bank’s permission by a lawyer. The case of the petitioner is that he is having no good relationship with the trade union, as such he cannot ask the trade union to defend his case since he is apprehending that he will not be defended properly by the trade union, hence he seeks direction from this court to allow him to be defended by a lawyer. The petitioner has approached to this court on earlier occasion by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No.26400 of 2017 assailing the order of rejection dtd.2.12.2017 whereby and where under his request for engagement of advocate to defend him in a departmental enquiry was rejected. This court, while disposing of the writ petition vide order dtd.28.12.2017, has taken the view that since the petitioner has not pointed out the difficulty which he is facing, hence without interfering with the earlier decision of the bank, given liberty to the petitioner to file application before the Disciplinary Authority for its consideration by them. The petitioner, in pursuance thereto has made an application but the same has been rejected vide order dtd.28.12.2017 stating the reason therein that the presenting officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is not a legal practitioner or not from any law background, hence request for engagement of an advocate to defend his case in domestic enquiry will not be acceded by the competent authority. He has been given advice to be guided by page no.24 and 25 of the Head Officer Circular dtd.29.5.2015. It has been stated that in the circular dtd.29.5.2015 the delinquent employee may take the assistance of any other employee to present the case on his behalf, but he may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the presenting officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is a legal practitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said order is before this court by way of the instant writ petition assailing the same by now taking the ground that even he cannot take the assistance of any other employee to defend his case since he does not know anyone or even if known, having no good relationship with them, as such the proper and adequate opportunity only can be said to be provided when he will be allowed to engage an advocate. This court, after going across the bipartite settlement dtd.10.4.2002 is of the view that the proceeding has been initiated by virtue of the terms and conditions of the said bipartite settlement wherein the provision has been given to engage an advocate but with the permission of the bank. This court has also gone through the circular dtd.29.5.2015 whereby and where under provision has been made to ask from the charge sheeted employee whether he requires any defence assistance to be nominated or not. Since this court is of the view that the bipartite settlement is binding upon the parties wherein provision has been made to engage the defence assistance, but so far as engagement of lawyer is concerned, that is with the Bank’s permission. The opposite party bank is assigning the reason that since the presenting officer is having no legal background, as such it would not be proper to allow the petitioner to be defended by an advocate, as such he has been allowed to be defended by taking assistance of any other employee, i.e. in pursuance to the circular dtd.29.5.2015. It is evident from the bipartite settlement that for engaging the lawyer, the discretion lies with the bank. It is evident from the bipartite settlement that for engaging the lawyer, the discretion lies with the bank. The petitioner is making a statement that there is no good relationship either with the members of the trade union or any of the employee working in the Bank, but on mere assertion of the petitioner it cannot be said that not allowing the permission by the Bank is an arbitrary exercise. It is settled that if there is any discretion with any of the authority, it is to be exercised without any arbitrariness but the petitioner has not proved any arbitrariness on the part of the bank and it is not derived from the record that the Bank is acting arbitrarily as because on earlier round of litigation, his prayer for engaging the advocate to defend him has been refused but subsequently the Bank, in order to provide opportunity, has allowed the petitioner to be defended by any of the employee working in the Bank but according to the petitioner he is having no good relationship even with any of the bank employee, but on this ground, the discretion which lies with the Bank regarding allowing permission to engage lawyer, cannot be said to be arbitrary. With respect to this issue it needs to be referred regarding the provision of section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which also contains a provision under Sub-section 4 of section 36, to quote, 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 said provision still holds good in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vrs. Their workmen reported in AIR 1977 SC 36 . The said provision still holds good in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vrs. Their workmen reported in AIR 1977 SC 36 . A division Bench of this court while dealing with the same issue scrutinizing the order passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar dtd.26.03.2016 and 30th July 2016 whereby and where under the engagement of legal practitioner to represent on behalf of the management has been rejected, fell for consideration and this court while considering the scope of section 36(4) of the I.D Act, has declined to interfere by putting reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble SC in the case of Paradip Port Trust (supra) and other judgments (W.P.(C) No.13843 of 2016 in the case of M/s. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vrs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another). The said judgment has been declined to be interfered with by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.4168 of 2017. According to the considered view of this court the provision made in the bipartite settlement is parameteria to that of the provision of section 36(4) of the I.D. Act, 1947 wherein it has been provided that the discretion lies to the Bank to allow the delinquent employee to be defended by advocate and if the bank is not according permission, the same cannot be said to be an illegal decision. Further it is not a case that the bank is not allowing the petitioner to defend himself through any other legal assistance but the same is not being accepted by the petitioner for the reason that all are not with good relationship with him, but that cannot be said to be a valid reason to extend the benefit by giving go bye to the terms and conditions of the bipartite settlement and encroaching upon the discretion of the bank. In view of the facts and circumstances and in the entirety of the same, in the considered view of this court, the petitioner has failed to make out a case of any arbitrariness on the part of the bank rather the bank is inclined to provide opportunity to defend the petitioner by following the bipartite settlement vis-à-vis the circular dtd.29.5.2015, hence the petitioner fails to make out a case for issuance of positive direction by making interference in the decision taken by the bank in the order dtd.28.12.2017. In the result writ petition fails and it is dismissed.