Bombay High Court Allows Workman to Avail Services of Legal Practitioner in Domestic Inquiry - Right to Representation Under Industrial Disputes Act. The court held that refusal to permit legal representation violates principles of natural justice.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Ajit Bhagwan Sawant, a workman employed by M/s. Parveen Industries Pvt. Ltd., was subjected to a domestic inquiry by the employer. The workman sought permission to be represented by a legal practitioner during the inquiry, but the employer refused. Aggrieved, the workman filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the refusal. The court examined the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly Section 11(1) which empowers the court to regulate its own procedure, and Section 36 which deals with representation of parties. The court noted that while Section 36 does not expressly confer a right to legal representation in domestic inquiries, the principles of natural justice require that a workman be allowed to engage a legal practitioner if the employer is represented by a legally trained person or if the complexity of the case warrants it. The court held that the refusal to permit legal representation was arbitrary and violative of natural justice. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, set aside the inquiry proceedings, and directed the employer to permit the workman to be represented by a legal practitioner in the domestic inquiry.

Headnote

A) Industrial Law - Domestic Inquiry - Right to Representation - Section 11(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The issue pertains to the right of a workman to be represented by a legal practitioner in a domestic inquiry. The court held that a workman has a right to be represented by a legal practitioner in a domestic inquiry, and the employer's refusal to permit such representation violates principles of natural justice. (Paras 1-18)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a workman has the right to be represented by a legal practitioner in a domestic inquiry conducted by the employer, and whether the employer's refusal to permit such representation violates principles of natural justice.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the petition, set aside the inquiry proceedings, and directed the employer to permit the workman to be represented by a legal practitioner in the domestic inquiry.

Law Points

  • Right to representation
  • domestic inquiry
  • legal practitioner
  • Industrial Disputes Act
  • 1947
  • Section 11(1)
  • Section 36
  • natural justice
  • permission to engage counsel
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (BOM) (01) 126

WP 11801 of 2023

2024-01-08

Sandeeep V. Marne, J.

2024:BHC-AS:786

Mr. Hamza Lakdawala for Petitioner; Mr. Avinash Jalisatgi a/w Mr. T. R. Yadav & Ms. Divya Wadekar for Respondent No.1

Ajit Bhagwan Sawant

M/s. Parveen Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging employer's refusal to permit workman to be represented by a legal practitioner in a domestic inquiry.

Remedy Sought

The workman sought a direction to the employer to allow him to be represented by a legal practitioner in the domestic inquiry.

Filing Reason

The employer refused the workman's request to engage a legal practitioner for representation in the domestic inquiry.

Issues

Whether a workman has the right to be represented by a legal practitioner in a domestic inquiry. Whether the employer's refusal to permit legal representation violates principles of natural justice.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the right to be represented by a legal practitioner is essential for a fair inquiry and that the employer's refusal violated natural justice. Respondent argued that there is no statutory right to legal representation in domestic inquiries and that the employer's decision was reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

A workman has a right to be represented by a legal practitioner in a domestic inquiry, and the employer's refusal to permit such representation violates principles of natural justice.

Judgment Excerpts

The issue involved in this Petition is about right of a workman to avail services of a legal practitioner in a domestic inquiry.

Procedural History

The workman filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the employer's refusal to permit legal representation in the domestic inquiry.

Acts & Sections

  • Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 11(1), Section 36
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Partially Allows Discharge Appeal in NIA Case — Appellant Discharged from MCOC and UAPA Offences but Retained for Murder and Explosives Charges. The court held that a prima facie case exists for offences under Sections 302/307 IPC...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition of Surgeon Challenging Orders Restricting Kidney Transplants Under Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994. Orders Passed Without Hearing Petitioner Violate Principles of Natural Justice and Are Quashed.