Back
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Ajit Bhagwan Sawant – Appellant
Versus
Parveen Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Through its Managing Director/C. E. O. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
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 Offic
The workman's right to choose his defense representative is restricted by the Model Standing Orders, which specify the qualifications of the defense representative.
A workman cannot engage an Advocate as a defence representative in a domestic enquiry if the management representative is not legally trained, despite the absence of specific provisions in the Model ....
There is no absolute right in favour of delinquent officer’s to be represented in departmental proceedings through agent of his choice and same can be restricted by employer – Only requirement is tha....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the prohibition under Rule 25(6) of the United India Insurance Company (conduct, discipline and appeal) Rules, 2014 should be interpreted o....
The denial of legal representation in Labour Court undermines fair trial rights; courts must interpret Section 36(4) of the ID Act liberally to ensure equality between parties.
The judgment emphasized the need to consider implied consent and award litigation expenses to permit legal representation before Labour Courts under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947....
The refusal to allow legal representation in a disciplinary enquiry, particularly when the presenting officer is legally trained, violates natural justice and renders the proceedings invalid.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
