Section 36 (Historical): Representation of parties under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Current-law update (29 October 2026): Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is historical, not current law. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 took effect on 21 November 2025; section 104, as amended by the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, repealed the 1947 Act from that date. Current representation is governed by section 94 of the Code: it bars legal-practitioner representation in conciliation proceedings and before a Tribunal or National Industrial Tribunal; before those tribunals, representation is permitted only with the other parties’ consent and the tribunal’s leave. The discussion below explains former section 36 and should not be read as current legal advice.

Section 36: Representation of Parties

​1. The Core Objective: “Non-Legalistic Environment”

​The primary intent behind Section 36 is to prevent industrial disputes from turning into “lawyers’ wars.” The legislature feared that if high-priced legal practitioners dominated the proceedings, the poor workman would be at a disadvantage, and the process would become bogged down in procedural delays.

​2. Breakdown of the Statutory Provisions

​Subsection (1): Representation of a Workman

​A workman who is a party to a dispute is entitled to be represented by:

• ​An officer of a Registered Trade Union of which he is a member.
• ​An officer of a Federation of Trade Unions to which his union is affiliated.
• ​Where the worker is not a member of any union, an officer 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.

​Subsection (2): Representation of an Employer

​An employer who is a party to a dispute is entitled to be represented by:

• ​An officer of an Association of Employers of which he is a member.
• ​An officer of a Federation of Associations of Employers to which his association is affiliated.
• ​Where the employer is not a member of any association, 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.

​Subsection (3): The “Absolute Bar”

​No party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceeding under this Act or any proceedings before a Court of Inquiry.

​Subsection (4): The “Conditional Bar” (The Most Controversial Part)

​In proceedings before a Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal, a party may be represented by a legal practitioner ONLY IF:

1. ​The consent of the other parties to the proceeding is obtained; AND
2. ​The leave (permission) of the Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal is granted.

3. Representation by union or employers’ association officers

Section 36(1) and (2) allowed parties to use specified union or employers’ association representatives; section 36(4) separately governed representation by counsel. In Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen, the Supreme Court recognized representation by a qualifying union office-bearer or employers’ association officer in that distinct capacity. A legal qualification or job title alone does not establish the required statutory role.

Supreme Court position: Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen (1977):

In Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen, (1977) 2 SCC 339, the Supreme Court distinguished a legal practitioner appearing as counsel under section 36(4) from a person representing a party in a qualifying union or employers’ association role under section 36(1) or (2). It held that a qualifying union office-bearer or employers’ association officer could represent in that distinct capacity. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this interpretation in Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Suresh Maruti Chougule & Ors. (4 October 2023). These decisions address the repealed section 36; current representation is governed by section 94 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.

​4. Challenging the Logic: The Constitutional Question

​Is Section 36(4) unconstitutional? Does it violate Article 14 (Equality) or Article 19(1)(g) (Right to practice a profession)?

• Supreme Court decision: In Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Suresh Maruti Chougule & Ors. (4 October 2023), the Court dismissed a constitutional challenge to former section 36(4), following Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen (1977). This concerns the repealed law.
• ​The Socratic Challenge: If a dispute involves complex interpretations of Constitutional law or intricate statutes, is it “fair” to deny a party expert legal counsel? By forcing a layman to argue against a seasoned “Officer-Lawyer” (who is a lawyer in disguise), does the Act inadvertently create the very inequality it seeks to prevent?

5. Consent and leave under former Section 36(4)

Former section 36(4) required consent of the other parties and leave of the tribunal. The cited material does not establish a universal rule about the form of consent or withdrawal after leave; those questions may depend on the case and governing order.

• Silence and consent: Section 36(4) required consent of the other parties and tribunal leave. This article has not verified a general rule on whether silence can satisfy consent; do not rely on silence alone.
• Withdrawal of consent: This article has not verified a general rule on withdrawing consent after tribunal leave is granted. The result may depend on the governing law, order and circumstances; seek case-specific legal advice.

6. Historical comparison: former Section 36(4) and the Advocates Act

The Advocates Act, 1961 and former section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act addressed different aspects of legal practice and representation. The Supreme Court considered their relationship in cases interpreting former section 36; the Industrial Disputes Act has since been repealed, and the current rule is set out in section 94 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.

Former-law position (not current law):

In Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen, (1977) 2 SCC 339, the Supreme Court treated the Industrial Disputes Act as a special law governing representation in industrial-dispute proceedings. In Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Suresh Maruti Chougule & Ors. (4 October 2023), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that precedent and dismissed a constitutional challenge to former section 36(4). These decisions concern the repealed Act; section 94 of the Industrial Relations Code now governs representation.

7. Historical summary table: representation under former Section 36

Forum	Legal Practitioner Allowed?	Conditions
Conciliation Officer	No	Absolute Bar (Sec 36(3))
Board of Conciliation	No	Absolute Bar
Court of Inquiry	No	Absolute Bar
Labour Court / Tribunal	Yes	Consent of other party + Leave of the Court

Is Section 36 Outdated?

​In 1947, the “Workman” was often illiterate and the “Employer” was a powerful capitalist. In 2026, many workmen are highly skilled professionals, and “Industries” include complex IT sectors and Global MNCs.

1. ​Complexity: Modern industrial disputes often involve international IP, cross-border contracts, and digital privacy. Can a Trade Union officer truly represent a worker in these technical matters?
2. Role, not label: Whether a person acts as a legal practitioner or a statutory representative depends on their actual role and the applicable law; calling someone a “consultant” or “HR director” does not by itself establish that representation is permitted. Current representation is governed by section 94 of the Industrial Relations Code.

Disclaimer

This content is a collection of ancient history,books and various articles and collection of library and news and other post ; all details may not be the same. Readers are requested to verify the information themselves. Readers are not allowed to take any disciplinary action; content is only for educational purposes. If readers do not agree about the contents, they may send a personal comment to my personal email ID: achary.purna@gmail.com