Back
2016 Supreme(SC) 708
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
Keshav H. Gholve & Anr. Etc. - Appellants
Versus
M/s Thermax Ltd. & Etc. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8255-8256 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6486-6487 of 2016)
Decided On : 23-08-2016
Unless management engages a lawyer, the delinquent workman is not entitled to engage one, but the appellants were permitted to be represented by an employee of their choice from the respondent-company or a representative of a trade union operating in the respondent-management.
Headnote:
Lawyer Representation - Domestic Enquiry - The court held that unless management engages a lawyer, the delinquent workman is not entitled to engage one. However, the appellants were permitted to be represented by an employee of their choice from the respondent-company or a representative of a trade union operating in the respondent-management, despite any restrictions in the standing orders.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were aggrieved as they were not permitted to be represented by a lawyer in the domestic enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appellants to be represented by an employee of their choice from the respondent-company or a representative of a trade union operating in the respondent-management, despite any restrictions in the standing orders.
Issues: The issue was whether the appellants were entitled to be represented by a lawyer in the domestic enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless management engages a lawyer, the delinquent workman is not entitled to engage one. However, the court permitted the appellants to be represented by an employee of their choice from the respondent-company or a representative of a trade union operating in the respondent-management, despite any restrictions in the standing orders.
Final Decision: The appeals were disposed of with the above observations.
JUDGMENT :
Kurian, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants are aggrieved since they are not permitted to be represented by a lawyer in the domestic enquiry.
3. It is now a settled position that unless management engages a law man, the delinquent workman is not entitled to engage a law man.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants apprehends that in view of the standing orders, he would not be in a position to engage an employee of his own choice and his choice would be restricted to an employee in the department concerned.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for respondents submits that the High Court has taken care of the apprehension and has made it clear in the impugned order that the appellants are free to engage any employee of their choice from the respondent-company or a representative of a trade union operating in the respondent- management.
6. Anyhow on the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the appellants, we make it clear that dehors any restrictions in the standing orders, the appellants are permitted to be represented by an employee of their choice from the respondent-company or a representative of a trade union operating in the respondent-management.
7. With the above observations appeals are disposed of.
