JUDGMENT : M. K. Thakker, J. 1. Though notice was served, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 i.e. Gujarat Rajya General Kamdar Mazdoor Panchayat. Learned advocate Ms.Yogini Parikh states at bar that though Vakalatnama was filed only on behalf of respondent No.2, the Registry, by mistake has shown appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 both, however, respondent No.1 remained unrepresented before this Court. 2. This petition is filed under Article 226, 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned labour court, Ahmedabad in reference LCAD No.03 of 2003 dated 02.05.2019 passed below Exh.38 and 39 by which the application preferred by the present petitioner-employer seeking permission to represent the case through an Advocate and the application demanding certain documents from the respondent Union came to be rejected. 3. It is the case of the present petitioner that dispute came to be raised by the respondent No.1-Union alleging that petitioners have terminated the service of the workers shown in Appendix-A with effect from 09.04.2001 and therefore, request was made to grant relief of reinstatement alongwith continuity of services and full back wages. The Union has not been represented by any Advocate and it was filed through the Union leader. It is further case of the petitioner that on 04.04.2003, the authority was filed on behalf of the petitioner of learned advocate Mr.Anil.S.Parikh as an authorized person was accepted by the learned labour court and on the same the endorsement was also made by the Union with regard to no objection. Thereafter, said advocate has filed pursis seeking permission to retire from the case, which was granted by the learned labour court and in the place of Mr.Parikh one Mr.R.K.Desai has filed the Vakalatnama on 22.10.2013 before the learned labour court. The appearance of learned advocate Mr.Desai was objected by the Union, therefore, application was filed seeking permission to represent the case through the union as well as seeking certain documents including the registration of the Union and the reasons for objecting the appearance of the advocate. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Rule 26, authorization has to be given as per Form-F wherein, the signature of the person nominating the representative is must. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Rule 26, authorization has to be given as per Form-F wherein, the signature of the person nominating the representative is must. In absence of the same, it cannot be said that workers have authorized the Union to represent the case in the present case as per the case of the petitioner, same was not fulfilled and therefore, certain documents were demanded by the learned advocate. Learned labour court by an impugned order has rejected both the application below Exh.38 and 39, on the ground that as per section 36 (4) of the ID Act, the consent of the other side is must and only after getting the permission of the court, the advocate can appear to represent the case. The said order is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Songara for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms.Yogini Parikh for the respondent-contractor and respondent No.1-Union who is the main contesting remains unrepresented. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Songara submits that initially the case of the present petitioner was represented by the advocate Mr.Parikh. At that point of time, initially objection on appearance was raised but subsequently on 06.11.2003 consent was given for the appearance of learned advocate Mr.Parikh by the Union to represent the case before the learned labour court on behalf of the petitioner-employer. Learned advocate Mr.Songara submits that on filing the retirement pursis another advocate has appeared before the court, however, at that point of time, the objections were raised by the Union with regard to the appearance. Learned advocate Mr.Songara submits that once the consent was given, merely changing of an advocate would not give the right to the Union to revoke his consent. Learned advocate Mr.Songara has relied on the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Bhagat Brothers Versus Paras Nath Upadhyay rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.212 of 2008 and submitted that if no objection was given on the appearance of the advocate, subsequently the same cannot be withdrawn on appearance of the other advocate. 4.2. Learned advocate Mr.Songara submits that Union was represented through the leader who may be specialized in law as well as in the procedure under the ID Act. 4.2. Learned advocate Mr.Songara submits that Union was represented through the leader who may be specialized in law as well as in the procedure under the ID Act. However, small employers who may not be experts in law, if not permitted to represent the case through an advocate, may create imbalance situations and therefore, the order passed by the learned labour court rejecting the application seeking permission to the present petitioner to represent the case through an advocate requires to be dismissed. 5. Learned advocate Ms.Parikh submits that as she is representing the contractors, she is a formal party and would not have any objection, if this application is allowed. 6. Considering the submission made by the learned advocate, it appears from the record that Union who has initiated proceedings of raising dispute and had conducted the matter through its office bearers of the Union, petitioner was initially permitted to represent through an advocate namely Mr.Anil Parikh and he had filed the authority letter in the capacity of Member of Employer Association having the qualification of advocate wherein, the initial endorsement stating that there is an objection however, thereafter, the endorsement dated 06.11.2003 suggests that no objection was given by the Union. Subsequently, the case was conducted by the learned advocate Mr.Parikh, thereafter, on 10.09.2012, the pursis came to be filed by learned advocate Mr.Parikh permitting him to retire from the case. Thereafter, on 22.10.2013 learned advocate Mr.R.K.Desai has filed the Vakalatnama wherein, the endorsement was made by the Union on 22.10.2013 regarding objection. On 22.01.2014, the application was filed below Exh.39 asking the Union to produce certain documents including the reasons for objecting the appearance and in the past for how many occasions such type of objections were raised. Exh.39 was replied by the Union stating that the earlier representative has issued various notices to the employers and as the employer was not appearing, the stage of evidence was closed and thereafter, representative has also retired from the case. It is submitted in the said reply that the appearance of the advocate would cause delay and therefore, same cannot be granted. 7. Learned labour court rejected the application by observing that under section 36(4), consent of the other side is mandatory and in absence of the consent, court cannot give permission to the learned advocate. It is submitted in the said reply that the appearance of the advocate would cause delay and therefore, same cannot be granted. 7. Learned labour court rejected the application by observing that under section 36(4), consent of the other side is mandatory and in absence of the consent, court cannot give permission to the learned advocate. As he is not permitted to appear in the application below Exh.38 is rejected, learned labour court has observed that application below Exh.39 filed through an advocate also deserves to be dismissed. 8. At this stage observation made by this Court in the case of Panasonic Energy India Co Ltd (NAVINO) Versus Makarpura Gidc Employees Union is required to be referred which is reproduced herein below:- “7. It is undisputed position that the Union who has initiated the proceedings of raising the dispute and who has to conduct the matter before the Industrial Tribunal is represented by a lawyer who is also office bearer of the Union. Therefore the workman is being represented by a lawyer though may be in capacity as the office bearer of the Union, in such circumstances, the Industrial Tribunal ought to have exercised the discretion of permitting engagement of lawyer to the petitioner company, otherwise, it may result into creating imbalance situation. It can also be said that the right of the petitioner under such circumstances for assistance through the legal practitioner may be substantially curtailed though the another party is already represented through a practising lawyer who is also office bearer of the union. At this stage, it would be profitable to make the reference to the decision of Madras High Court in case of Management, Hindustan Motors Earth Moving Equipment Division Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court reported at 2007 I CLR 967 in which exactly the identical situation came to be considered by Madras High Court and it was inter alia observed at para 23 as under: “23. In the present sets of writ petitions, it is seen that though the workmen were technically represented by a leader of the trade union to which they belong, but, however, the said representative (G.Muthu) is an advocate practising before the High Court and the other Subordinate Courts and who has rich experience in dealing with the labour laws for over 30 years. If the same benefits is denied to the management on the basis of the workmen not giving consent in terms of S.36(4) of the I.D.Act, certainly it will result in an imbalance being created in defending the case before a quasi-judicial body and it will violate Art.14 of the Constitution of India. This type of withholding of consent by the workmen was never contemplated in a case where workmen have a trained lawyer whereas the management in the second set of cases, a public sector management is not being allowed to defend its case by a legal practitioner. This had resulted in an anomalous situation. In fact, in the garb of exercising their right of withholding consent in the first set of cases, the workman and his representative waited or 55 adjournments and had allowed the management to be represented by a lawyer including filing vakalat at an earlier point of time and have raised this issue after a period of five years.” 8. Same is the position in the present case. Therefore it appears that the Industrial Tribunal committed apparent error in exercising discretion in not permitting the petitioner to engage the lawyer. As such the Industrial Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances and in view of the aforesaid legal position ought to have permitted engagement of the lawyer to the petitioner.” 9. Considering the overall facts this court is of the view that once the consent has already been given to the authorized person, who is having the degree of LLB to represent the case, mere withdrawal of the appearance would not give the right to revoke the consent which was already given by the Union. Hence, this Court is of the view that the learned court has committed error in rejecting the application below Exh.38, hence the impugned order requires to be set aside. 10. Resultantly the application below Exh.38 is allowed, the petitioner is permitted to appear through an advocate Mr.R.K.Desai and learned labour court is directed to decide afresh the application below Exh.39 as expeditiously as possible. 11. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed to the above extent. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2022 In view of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.13246 of 2020, this application is disposed of.