the present case, the right of an advocate and the party are intertwined and go together. Further, the mandate of Article 14 of Constitution of India would also come into play in relation to the right of the litigant to present his case effectively. A effective representation postulates that legal assistance is not unduly denied. The conditions imposed by Section 36(4) are totally arbitrary and unreasonable. In comparison, there is no such requirement in other labour legislations concerning which as well there are disputes pending before the Industrial and Labour Courts. There are other Courts, which are exercising powers and discharging functions such as the Employee State Insurance Court, Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Commissioner of Provident Funds. They do not prohibit the lawyers nor the legislations concerned prevent these authorities from allowing the litigants before them to appear through advocates. Equally, in the Industrial and Labour Courts, there is a discrimination, in the sense, under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 important matters are conducted day to day by the advocates. There is no prohibition from appearance through advocates. In the circumstances, we should not sustain this provision, is the argument of Mr. Naik. He further argues that if the language of sub-section (2) of Section 36 is noted, it cannot be said with certainty that appearance through Office Bearers or Officers of the Employers Association of which a litigant employer is a member, a effective substitute for an advocate. Today, labour legislations and labour laws are giving rise
