Tribunal representation rights are statutory, and consent-based limits on advocates' appearance were upheld against constitutional challenge.

An advocate's right of audience before a tribunal is not an absolute incident of professional qualification; it depends on the statute governing that tribunal, and Article 19(1)(g) does not create a free-standing right to appear in all judicial or quasi-judicial fora. The commentary also explains that a consent-based restriction on representation is not arbitrary discrimination under Article 14 because tribunals are distinct from courts and may follow different procedural rules. On that reasoning, the restriction on appearance before the industrial tribunal was upheld and the constitutional challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an advocate has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to appear before a tribunal notwithstanding the restriction contained in Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Section 14(1)(b) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926. (ii) Whether Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is invalid as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether an advocate has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to appear before a tribunal notwithstanding the restriction contained in Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Section 14(1)(b) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926.

Analysis: The right of audience before courts and tribunals is not an unrestricted incident of legal qualification or citizenship. Under the Indian Bar Councils Act, an advocate's right to practise is subject to the law for the time being in force, and the special right claimed before a tribunal must be found within the statute governing that tribunal. Article 19(1)(g) protects existing legal rights but does not create a new and absolute right of appearance before all judicial or quasi-judicial bodies.

Conclusion: The claimed unrestricted right of audience was negatived, and the restriction under Section 36(4) was held to govern appearances before the tribunal.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is invalid as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Courts and tribunals are not similarly situated. Tribunals are statutory bodies with flexible procedure and are not bound by the same procedural traditions as courts, so differential treatment in relation to legal representation is permissible. The consent requirement in Section 36(4) was treated as a legislative choice and not an arbitrary discrimination, even if it may cause hardship in some cases.

Conclusion: Section 36(4) was held not to offend Article 14.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both constitutional grounds, and the refusal to permit the advocate's appearance before the industrial tribunal was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: The right of an advocate to appear before a tribunal is statutory and may be restricted by the law governing that tribunal, and such a restriction is not discriminatory where tribunals are treated as a distinct class from courts.

---