JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. The issue involved in this Petition is about right of a workman to avail services of a legal practitioner to defend himself in the domestic inquiry when the Inquiry Officer is a legally trained mind. The issue arises in the light of challenge set up by the Petitioner to the Order dated 9 August 2023 passed by the Industrial Court at Thane rejecting application at Exh.U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No. 240 of 2022 claiming interim relief, inter-alia, for permission to engage Mr. Shishir Dhavale as defence representative in the inquiry.

2. Both the learned counsel have been heard extensively on the issue and they agree that the Petition can be decided finally. In that light, Rule which is made returnable forthwith.

3. Considering the narrow controversy involved in the present Petition, it is not necessary to narrate facts in detail. Suffice it to record that the Petitioner is working with the Respondent-Company and has been subjected to domestic inquiry by issuance of chargesheet dated 6 October 2022. The employer has nominated Mr. K.T. Dongre, a practicing Advocate, as Inquiry Officer. The management representative however is not a legal professional. Since the Inquiry Officer is a practicing Advocate, the Petitioner requested that he be granted an opportunity to engage an Advocate to act as defence representative. Alternatively, he requested for nomination of Mr. Shishir Dhavale, his well-wisher, to act as his defence representative. The Inquiry Officer has, however, rejected the request of the Petitioner for engagement of Mr. Shishir Dhavale to act as defence representative.

4. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent-employer was hurriedly proceeding with the inquiry without granting sufficient opportunity of defence to him. He, therefore, approached the Industrial Court, Thane, by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 240 of 2022 seeking various reliefs for withdrawal of suspension order and chargesheet. Alternatively, he has prayed for permitting engagement of Mr. Shishir Dhavale as his defence representative. He has also sought various other reliefs such as conduct of inquiry before the Industrial Court, payment of wages, compensation, etc. In his complaint, the Petitioner filed application for interim relief at Exh.U-2 under the provisions of Section 30(2) of The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (‘MRTU & PULP Act’). One of the interim reliefs sought by the Petitioner is to permit him to engage Mr. Shishir Dhavale as his defence representative in the inquiry. By Order dated 9 August 2023, the Industrial Court has proceeded to reject the said application at Exh.U-2, which has necessitated filing of the present Petition.

5. Mr. Lakdawala, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would submit that the Petitioner is being targeted as he floated a rival union and because he continued to remain the sole surviving member of his union. That, he is deliberately implicated in the false charges with a view to ensure his ouster from services. Though the interim application at Exh.U-2 was filed seeking various reliefs, Mr. Lakdawala would fairly that concede the scope of the Petition is to restrict the nomination of Mr. Shirish Dhavale as defence representative or any other person as desired by the Petitioner. In fact, this is a limited prayer made in the present Petition in addition to the prayer of conduct of de novo-fresh inquiry after nomination of defence representative.

6. Mr. Lakdawala would submit that the charges levelled against the Petitioner are of serious nature and complicated questions are involved in the same. That, the Petitioner is educated only up to 10th standard and is incapable of understanding the complicated charges and defending himself. That, the Inquiry Officer is a practicing Advocate, who is not part of the Respondent-Company. That, since an outsider legally trained mind is being utilized by the employer for conducting inquiry ag