The Bombay High Court set aside the Industrial Court’s order, holding that mere experience in handling domestic enquiries does not constitute a legally trained mind. Absence of legal qualification on the management’s side negates the workman’s right to an advocate.

The court reiterated that the right to legal representation in domestic enquiries is contingent on the presence of a legally trained mind on the management’s side. In this case, the management representative lacked formal legal training, making the Industrial Court’s order unsustainable. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 17)

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India (COI) — Article 226 — Powers of High Courts to issue writs

2. Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) — Section 28 — Complaint of Unfair Labour Practices

3. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 — Clause 25(4) of Model Standing Orders — Representation in domestic enquiry

Subjects:

Unfair Labour Practice — Domestic Enquiry — Defence Representative — Advocate Appointment — Industrial Court Order — Legal Practitioner — Principles of Natural Justice — Legally Trained Mind

Nature of the Litigation: Writ petition filed by the employer challenging the order of the Industrial Court permitting the workman to engage an advocate as his defence representative in a domestic enquiry.

Relief Sought: The petitioners sought quashing of the Industrial Court’s interim order dated 9 December 2024, allowing the workman’s application to appoint an advocate.

Reason for Filing the Case: The employer contended that the management representative in the domestic enquiry was not a legally trained mind; hence, the workman’s request for an advocate was unwarranted.

Previous Decisions: The Industrial Court, by its interim order dated 9 December 2024, permitted the workman to engage an advocate as his defence representative.

Issues: Whether a workman can engage an advocate as a defence representative when the management representative is not a legally trained mind.

Submissions/Arguments:

a) Petitioners argued that the management representative was not legally trained and the workman’s right to an advocate arises only when the management’s representative possesses legal expertise. b) Respondents contended that the management representative had sufficient experience in labour law and domestic enquiries, making him a legally trained mind.