https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194109 Section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is enabling rather than exhaustive, so it does not confine employer representation before an industrial tribunal only to the specified categories of persons. The Bombay High Court held that other duly authorised agents are not excluded, provided the tribunal's procedural control under Section 11 is respected. Rule 32 of the Bombay Rules was noted as consistent with broader representation rights. The tribunal's order permitting representation through an authorised person was therefore sustained, and the challenge failed. en-us Mon, 22 Aug 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Aug 2017 14:11:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194109 Section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is enabling rather than exhaustive, so it does not confine employer representation before an industrial tribunal only to the specified categories of persons. The Bombay High Court held that other duly authorised agents are not excluded, provided the tribunal's procedural control under Section 11 is respected. Rule 32 of the Bombay Rules was noted as consistent with broader representation rights. The tribunal's order permitting representation through an authorised person was therefore sustained, and the challenge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 22 Aug 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194109