ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. I.A. No. 6493 of 2021 The appellant-in-person has filed this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The appellant-in-person has referred the following paragraphs in support of this application: “4. That it is stated and submitted that stipulated period for filing of the L.P.A has been expired on 17.06.2019. 5. That it is stated and submitted that and after losing the writ petition, petitioner/ appellant who is an organization has made every efforts to arrange necessary money for filing of the present memo of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, and its took some time and due to it delay occurred. 6. That it is further stated and submitted that on 24.07.2019 appellant came to Ranchi and consulted to his Advocate for filing of the case. After discussion, the memo of appeal was drafted and the same was filed before this Hon'ble Court on 26.07.2019.” 3. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has raised no objection. 4. In view of the statements made in the interlocutory application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. I.A. No. 6493 of 2021 is, accordingly, allowed. LPA No. 499 of 2019 6. The order dated 18th May 2019 passed in W.P.(L) No. 1036 of 2015 has been challenged by the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha. 7. Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey who is appearing in-person on behalf of the Mazdoor Sabha states that he is representing the appellant in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 8. According to the appellant-in-person, in Reference Case No. 3 of 2014 the legal representatives of the Management of M/s Usha Martin Limited continued to appear in breach of the mandate under sub-section (3) to section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ID Act) and the Award dated 7th August 2020 has been made. Therefore, outcome of the present Letters Patent Appeal would have a substantial impact on legality of the aforesaid Award dated 7th August 2020. 9. In the aforesaid background, we have heard the appellant-in-person who has referred to section 36 of the ID Act to challenge the order dated 15th December 2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi, by which the objection taken on behalf of the workmen to the appearance of Mr. Satish Bakshi and Mr. 9. In the aforesaid background, we have heard the appellant-in-person who has referred to section 36 of the ID Act to challenge the order dated 15th December 2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi, by which the objection taken on behalf of the workmen to the appearance of Mr. Satish Bakshi and Mr. A.K. Verma on behalf of the Management of M/s Usha Martin Limited has been rejected by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi. 10. The submission made at Bar is that considering the very nature of the disputes which are adjudicated by the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal etc. the Legislature has consciously decided not to permit any party to the dispute to take legal help from a legal practitioner. To substantiate the objection so taken to the appearance of Mr. Satish Bakshi and Mr. A.K. Verma who according to the workmen are active legal practitioners, the appellant-in-person has extensively read out the judgment in “Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen” (1977) 2 SCC 339 . 11. The ID Act has been brought on the statute book with the object of making provisions for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, and for certain other purposes. The object behind the ID Act is to ensure social justice to both the employers and the employees, and to ensure progress of the industry by bringing about harmony and cordial relationship between both the parties. The restriction on engagement and appearance of the legal practitioner during any conciliation proceeding and the proceedings in the Court which would include Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal etc. is based on the premise that the Labour Laws operate in a different field where there are two unequal contestants. With the aforesaid object in the forefront, section 36 of the ID Act, however, makes a limited provision for representation of parties in the Court. 12. The provisions under section 36 of the ID Act are extracted hereinbelow: “36. is based on the premise that the Labour Laws operate in a different field where there are two unequal contestants. With the aforesaid object in the forefront, section 36 of the ID Act, however, makes a limited provision for representation of parties in the Court. 12. The provisions under section 36 of the ID Act are extracted hereinbelow: “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 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]. (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]. 36-A. Power to remove difficulties.-(1) If, in the opinion of the appropriate Government any difficulty or doubt arises as to the interpretation of any provision of an award or settlement, it may refer the question to such Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal as it may think fit. (2) The Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal to which such question is referred shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, decide such question and its decision shall be final and binding on all such parties. 36-B. Power to exempt.-Where the appropriate Government is satisfied in relation to any industrial establishment or undertaking or any class of industrial establishments or undertakings carried on by a department of that Government that adequate provisions exist for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in respect of workmen employed in such establishment or undertaking or class of establishments or undertakings, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt, conditionally or unconditionally such establishment or undertaking or class of establishments or undertakings from all or any of the provisions of this Act.” 13. A glance at the aforesaid provision would indicate that a workman is entitled to be represented in any proceeding under the ID Act through three different class of officers/office bearers. Whereas, an employer is entitled to be represented through (i) an officer of an association of employers of which he is a member; (ii) an officer of a federation of associations of employers to which the association referred to in clause (a) is affiliated; and (iii) 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 authorized in such manner as may be prescribed. 14. 14. What has been sought to be agitated on behalf of the workmen is based on a bar under sub-section (3) to section 36 of the ID Act, which provides that no party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings or in any proceedings before a Court. Sub-section (4) to section 36 of the ID Act which is in the nature of explanation to the bar under sub-section (3) to section 36 of the ID 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 the other parties to the proceedings and with the leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be. 15. The provisions under sub-section (3) to section 36 of the ID Act came up for discussion before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Paradip Port Trust, Paradip” wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the intention behind sub-section (3) to section 36 of the ID Act is not that the companies and corporation can be represented through a legal practitioner who is an officer of an association of employers or of a federation of such associations. 16. In “Paradip Port Trust, Paradip”, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “16. If, however, a legal practitioner is appointed as an officer of a company or corporation and is in their pay and under their control and is not a practising advocate the fact that he was earlier a legal practitioner or has a legal degree will not stand in the way of the company or the corporation being represented by him. Similarly if a legal practitioner is an officer of an association of employers or of a federation of such associations, there is nothing in Section 36(4) to prevent him from appearing before the tribunal under the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Act. Again, an office-bearer of a trade union or a member of its executive, even though he is a legal practitioner, will be entitled to represent the workmen before the tribunal under Section 36(1) in the former capacity. Again, an office-bearer of a trade union or a member of its executive, even though he is a legal practitioner, will be entitled to represent the workmen before the tribunal under Section 36(1) in the former capacity. The legal practitioner in the above two cases will appear in the capacity of an officer of the association in the case of an employer and in the capacity of an office-bearer of the union in the case of workmen and not in the capacity of a legal practitioner. The fact that a person is a legal practitioner will not affect the position if the qualifications specified in Section 36(1) and Section 36(2) are fulfilled by him.” 17. In our opinion, the only restriction which can be read into sub-section (3) to section 36 of the ID Act is that the active legal practitioner cannot be permitted to represent a party during a conciliation proceeding or any proceedings in the Court subject to consent of the parties and leave of the Court as provided under sub-section (4). 18. The Tribunal has recorded a specific finding that there is no challenge to the authority of Mr. Satish Bakshi and Mr. A.K. Verma that they are Chairman and Secretary of the Jharkhand Industries Development Association. This has also not been brought on the records of the case that during the period when Reference Case No. 3 of 2014 proceeded between the parties, the aforesaid persons have been appearing in the Court in their individual capacity as advocates. 19. In our opinion, the writ Court has rightly declined to interfere with the order dated 15th December 2014 and dismissed W.P.(L) No.1036 of 2015. 20. The writ Court has held as under: “14. Section 36 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act has a wide import. It delineates the categories of persons who can represent an employer who is a party to the dispute. Mr. Satish Bakshi and Mr. A.K. Verma are indisputably members of the Jharkhand Industries Development Association with which M/s. Usha Martin Ltd., is affiliated. Thus they cannot be termed to be within the confines of Section 36(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Tribunal has correctly decided the issue at hand while rejecting the objection filed on behalf of the Union and permitting Mr. Satish Bakshi and Mr. Thus they cannot be termed to be within the confines of Section 36(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Tribunal has correctly decided the issue at hand while rejecting the objection filed on behalf of the Union and permitting Mr. Satish Bakshi and Mr. A.K. Verma to represent the management of M/s. Usha Martin Ltd., in Reference Case No. 03 of 2014.” 21. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the writ Court's order and, accordingly, LPA No. 499 of 2019 is dismissed. 22. However, there is one aspect of the matter which needs to be recorded in this proceeding. A copy of the Award dated 7th August 2020 passed in Reference Case No. 3 of 2014 has been filed in W.P.(L) No. 3304 of 2021, a glance at which would disclose that the authority of Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey as the General Secretary of the Union was seriously challenged by Chandra Prakash Singh and Shankar Mahto who claimed that Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey used forged documents and projected himself as the legal representative of the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha. We further find a reference in this regard that criminal cases have been lodged against Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey. We, however, do not find any reference in the order of the writ Court or even before this Court that Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey who is appearing in-person has disclosed these facts to this Court. Therefore, this Court takes serious note of the aforesaid conduct of Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey who did not inform this Court about such a dispute raised and seriously contested before the Reference Court. Therefore, we direct him to make a special reference about this dispute wherever he intends to represent himself as the authorized representative of the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha.