Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
Indian Express (P) Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Prashant Ambekar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for rival parties, petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
2) Order passed by the Industrial Court permitting Respondent-workman to be represented by an Advocate as his defence representative in the domestic enquiry has been challenged by the employer in the present petition.
3) Respondent No.1 has filed a Complaint of unfair labour practice being Complaint (ULP) No.99/20124 in Industrial Court, Thane alleging victimisation and harassment on account of initiation of domestic enquiry against him. In that complaint, he filed application at Exhibit U-2 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.
4) Petitioner No.1 is a private
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 ....
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 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.
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 discretion vested with the Enquiry Officer under Rule 7(A) (13) is to be exercised judiciously and with circumspection, and the Enquiry Officer's decision to decline the request for engagement of....
Legal representation in disciplinary proceedings is contingent upon the Presenting Officer being a legal practitioner, as per Rule 9(5) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that medical representatives are considered 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Serv....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of employee rights under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and the rules fra....
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
