Indian Express (P) Ltd Vs Prashant Ambekar (Bombay High Court)
Management Representative Without Legal Training Cannot Engage Advocate to Defend Workman
Management representative not being legally trained mind cannot enable outsider advocate to defend workman
Bombay High Court held that the management representative cannot be treated as legally trained mind for enabling an outsider practicing Advocate to defend Respondent-workman in the domestic enquiry. Accordingly, order of industrial court is liable to be set aside.
Facts- Respondent No.1 has filed a Complaint of unfair labour practice in Industrial Court, Thane alleging victimisation and harassment on account of initiation of domestic enquiry against him. In that complaint, he filed application for grant of interim relief for engagement of Advocate to act as his defence representative. By order dated 9 December 2024, the Industrial Court has allowed the application and has permitted engagement of an Advocate to act as the workman’s defence representative with further direction to the Petitioners to provide proper opportunity of raising defence to him. Accordingly, the Petitioner-employer has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 9 December 2024.
Conclusion- Held that there is no material on record to hold that the management representative can be treated as legally trained mind for enabling an outsider practicing Advocate to defend Respondent No.1 in the domestic enquiry. In the facts of the present case, where the management representative is an officer from H.R. Department, permitting a practicing advocate to act as defence representative would upset the balance. Respondent No.1, on the other hand, can nominate a person fitting into the parameters prescribed in Clause-25(4) of the Model Standing Orders. Petitioner is a large establishment which has employed several employees and has presence of a recognised trade union. Therefore, there is no dearth of persons who can assist Respondent No.1 in the departmental enquiry. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, provision of assistance of a legal practitioner for defending Respondent No.1 is clearly unwarranted. The Industrial Court has grossly erred in passing the impugned order dated 9 December 2024. The findings of the Industrial Court that management representative is a qualified person having knowledge of relevant legal procedure is not supported by any pleadings or material. The Industrial Court has proceeded to permit engagement of legal practitioner by going into the nature of the charges, which in my view, is totally irrelevant criteria. The impugned order of the Industrial Court is thus indefensible and liable to be set aside.
