An employee is entitled to the assistance of a lawyer in a disciplinary enquiry if the Management representative is a legally trained person, irrespective of the complexity of the case.

1. The Petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Court rejecting the Revision Application filed by him against the order of the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.27 of 2009 rejecting his application for interim reliefs. In the Complaint, the Petitioner had sought various reliefs. Ms. Jane Cox, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, however, restricted the Petitioner's case to allowing him to be represented by a legal practitioner or one Arjun Singh Rajput, a workman. In the Complaint, the Petitioner filed an application for interim reliefs under section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) to restrain the Respondents, inter alia, from proceeding with the enquiry against him, without providing him the assistance of a legal practitioner or the said workman. The Labour Court rejected this interim application. The Petitioner filed the said Revision Application against this order, which was rejected by the impugned order.

2. The Petitioner is an employee of Respondent No.1 Respondent No.2 is the Enquiry Officer appointed in respect of a disciplinary enquiry against the Petitioner.

3. The few factual aspects which require appreciation in turn lead to a question of law of some importance. The question of law that falls for consideration is whether a workman is entitled to the assistance of a lawyer when the Presenting Officer/Management Representative is a legally trained person if the facts are simple and not complicated. I have come to the conclusion that the Presenting Officer is a legally trained person and that the facts are not simple. I have answered the question of law in the affirmative. The Petitioner has, therefore, succeeded in his application for the assistance of a legal practitioner.

4. The Petitioner has been employed by the Respondent since 3rd February, 1979. He was initially appointed as an operator-cum- mechanic and thereafter, in the fire fighting department. The Respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 3rd July, 2009 to the Petitioner alleging that on 16th June, 2009 he had misbehaved and threatened an officer of the company. The Petitioner, by a letter dated 3rd July, 2009, requested the Respondent for time upto 13th July, 2009 to furnish his explanation to the show-cause notice. The Respondent, however, served a charge-sheet dated 8th July, 2009, levelling serious charges against the Petitioner of indecent behaviour on the premises of the establishment and commission of acts subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment. It is pertinent to note that in the charge-sheet, the Respondent stated that five days had passed since it had issued the show-cause notice which, according to the Respondent, was ample time for the Petitioner to conduct meetings, discussions and deliberate on the issue. The Petitioner's request for time upto 13th July, 2009, was, therefore, rejected.

5(a). The Petitioner, by his letter dated 9th July, 2009, denied the charges and requested fifteen days' time to reply to the show-cause notice and the charge-sheet.

(b) The Petitioner addressed a letter dated 19th August, 2009 to the Enquiry Officer stating that not only was he highly qualified in the legal field but that the Management Representative one N.M. Date was also highly qualified in the legal field. The Petitioner, therefore, requested that he be permitted to appoint an advocate or such other competitive person as his defence representative in the enquiry. By another letter also dated 19th August, 2009, addressed to the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner stated that he was appointing the said Arjun Singh Rajput as his defence representative. The said Rajput was then working at the Respondent's Plant at Thane.

6. The Enquiry Officer considered the Petitioner's application for permission to appoint a lawyer or such other qualified person as his defence representative. He stated t