JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the first respondent Labour Court, Chennai in I.A.No.271 of 2013 in I.D.No.35 of 2013 and to quash the same and consequently grant a directions to the first respondent Labour Court to permit the petitioners to engage a legal practitioner of their choice.) 1.This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the first respondent viz., the learned District Judge, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.A.No.271 of 2013 in I.D.No.35 of 2013, thereby restraining the petitioner from engaging legal practitioner in the Industrial Dispute proceedings. 2. The second respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.35 of 2013, challenging the termination order passed by the second petitioner dated 28.01.2010. On 05.03.2013, the petitioners engaged counsel and requested time to file counter. On the said request, the ID was adjourned to 05.04.2013. In the meantime, the second respondent filed an application in I.A.No.271 of 2013 in I.D.No.35 of 2013, objecting the appearance of the legal practitioner under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1974. Though the petitioners filed detailed counter, the Labour Court allowed the application filed by the second respondent thereby restrained the petitioners from engaging legal practitioner on their behalf before the Labour Court. Hence, the petitioners filed this present Writ Petition with the above said prayer. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that Article 39 A of the Constitution of India provides that the State shall endure to provide free legal assistant to its citizens. Therefore, the reasons quoted by the second respondent are not genuine and he wants to ouster the engagement of a legal practitioner in order to take undue advantage of lack of legal knowledge of the petitioners. In fact, the second respondent has represented through Union leader who regularly appears before the Labour Court forum and he is aware of all legal proceedings which are followed in the Labour Courts. 3.1. He further submitted that another Industrial Dispute raised by the second respondent in I.D.No.63 of 2013 before the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in which the petitioners were allowed to engage legal practitioner on their behalf to defend their case in the industrial dispute raised by the second respondent. 3.1. He further submitted that another Industrial Dispute raised by the second respondent in I.D.No.63 of 2013 before the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in which the petitioners were allowed to engage legal practitioner on their behalf to defend their case in the industrial dispute raised by the second respondent. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (1) LLN 449 in the case of Management, Hindustan Motors Earth Moving Equipment Division Ltd., Vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and ors. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that he has authorized the leader of Trade Union on his behalf before the Labour Court since the he has no resources to engage any other professional lawyer and unable afford the free of the lawyer. The provision under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act is enacted with intention to prevent any party having an unfair advantage of the other. This privilege was given to the labour to prevent the appearance of the opposite side through professional lawyer. 4.1 She further submitted that the second respondent had never given any consent to the petitioners to appear through legal practitioner in this dispute. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner, without consent of the second respondent and also without the leave of the Lobour Court. In support of her contention, she relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 28.10.2015 in the case of National Horticultural Research and Development Foundatation Vs. The Presiding Officer and ors in which, this Court held that any proceedings before the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner with the consent of the other parties to the proceedings and with the leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal. 4.2. She also relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Paradip Port Trust Vs. Their Workmen reported in 1977 AIR 36 in which, the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India held that consent of the opposite part is not an idle alternative but a ruling factor in Section 36(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act. A lawyer, simpliciter, cannot appear before an Industrial Tribunal without the consent of the opposite party and leave of the Tribunal. 5. A lawyer, simpliciter, cannot appear before an Industrial Tribunal without the consent of the opposite party and leave of the Tribunal. 5. Heard Mr.V.Govardhanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms.V.Pushpalatha, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 6. The second respondent raised industrial dispute in I.D.No.35 of 2013 before the first respondent in which, the petitioners are the respondents. The petitioners were engaged counsel and sought for time to file a counter. At the request of the petitioners, the first respondent viz., Labour Court adjourned the matter. In the mean time, the second respondent filed an application in I.A.No.271 of 2013 restraining the petitioners from engaging legal practitioner on their behalf as contemplated under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The first respondent allowed the said application as against which the present Writ Petition. 7. The point for consideration in this Writ Petition is that whether the parties can engage legal practitioner on their behalf in the industrial dispute before the Labour Court. 8. The second respondent raised industrial dispute and represented through union leader before the Labour Court viz, the first respondent herein. It is relevant to extract the provision under Section 36 of the Industrial Dispute Act, as follows :- “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 other 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 authorized 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 associations 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 proceeding under this Act or in any proceeding 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 proceedings and with the leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal as the case may be.” 9. The provisions under Section 36(1) to 36(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act may not relevant to the facts of the case. The provision under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act which introduces the requirement of prior consent of the opposite party and leave of the Tribunals and of the Labour Court, as the case may be, for enabling a party to be represented by a legal practitioner. 10. The scope of the Section 36(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act was examined by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Paradip Port Trust Vs. Their Workmen reported in 1977 AIR 36. In the said case, it was urged on behalf of the appellant therein that an advocate shall be entitled to practice in all Courts including the Tribunal as of right. Such submission was dealt with by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India by holding that Section 30 of the Advocates Act has not come into force in view of which there is no right that could be claimed by Advocates to appear before the Labour Court. 11. More over, the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India was of the opinion that the Industrial Dispute Act is a special piece of legislation with the avowed aim of labour welfare. 11. More over, the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India was of the opinion that the Industrial Dispute Act is a special piece of legislation with the avowed aim of labour welfare. It is being a special Act will prevail over the Advocates Act, which is a general piece of legislation with regard to the subject matter of appearance of lawyers before all Court, Tribunal and other authorities. However, whether the Advocates Act can be treated as a general piece of legislation in respect of appearance of lawyers in Labour Courts needs detail consideration. 12. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the two Judges Bench judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Thyssen Krupp Industries India Private Limited Vs. Suresh Maruti Chougule and ors in Civil Appeal No.6586 of 2019 dated 21.08.2019 in which, the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India discussed the Paradip Port Trust case as sated supra and referred the matter before the larger Bench. However, the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India considering the long pendency of the industrial dispute before the Labour Court and also readiness of the management to pay the Advocate fees on behalf of the workmen, directed the Labour Court to dispose the industrial dispute within a stipulated time and permitted both the parties viz., management as well as the workmen to engage to their respective Advocate before the Labour Court. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (1) LLN 449 in the case of Management, Hindustan Motors Earth Moving Equipment Division Ltd., Vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and ors, in which this Court held that when many technicalities are involved in getting the dispute adjudicated, we cannot consider an individual workman or an untrained trade representative defending their case without legal assistance. In view of the Article 39(A) of the Constitution of India providing for legal aid to poor and the Parliament has also enacted Legal Aid Services Authority Act and such authorities having been created from Taluk level to the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India, a workman can have the assistance of a lawyer of his choice, if those names are in the panel of the legal aid services and such a legal assistance can be obtained free of cost. 14. 14. Further held that if the same benefit is denied to the management on the basis of the workmen not giving consent in terms of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act, certainly it will result in an imbalance being created in defending the case before the quasi-judicial body and it will violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the above case, this Court held that in the case of the workmen engaging a trained reasoned lawyer in the garb of a trade union leader, the management should not be denied the very same right by relying upon the Section 36(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act. 15. In view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Thyssen Krupp case as stated supra by referring the matter to larger bench to decide the issue with regard to engaging the legal practitioner under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act and Section 30 of the Advocates Act by differing view taken by the three Judges bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Paradip Port Trust Vs. Their Workmen reported in 1977 AIR 36 and also considering the long pendency of the Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.35 of 2013 from the year 2013 before the first respondent, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the first respondent cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated dated 27.08.2014 passed by the first respondent viz., the learned District Judge, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.271 of 2013 in I.D.No.35 of 2013, is hereby set aside. The petitioners are permitted to engage a legal practitioner on their behalf to appear before the first respondent viz., Labour Court, in I.D.No.35 of 2013, on condition that, if the second respondent engages counsel on his behalf before the Labour Court, in I.D.No.35 of 2013, the petitioners shall pay his Advocate fees. In view of the pendency of the industrial dispute for these long years, the first respondent viz., the learned District Judge, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai, is directed to dispose the industrial dispute in I.D.No.35 of 2013 in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 17. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. 17. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to cost.