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 Standing Orders.

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 limited company engaged in printing and publishing of multi-edition newspapers under various titles as Indian Express, Loksatta, Financial Express, Jansatta etc. Petitioner No.2 is the director and Petitioner No.3 is the General Manager (Administration) of the Petitioner No.1-Company. Respondent No.1 was appointed as Apprentice Rotary Assistant vide letter of appointment of dated 1 November 1990. He was given designation of Rotary Assistant w.e.f 1 May 1991 in the Rotary Department of the Press. On 29 November 2023, show-cause notice was issued to Respondent No.1 alleging refusal to discharge duties by him as a Supervisor in the Production Department at Mahape Printing Press, Navi Mumbai. It was alleged that mistakes committed by him during the course of printing of newspaper-Loksatta Edition on 24 November 2023 resulted in wastage of 3863 copies in addition to deliberate slowing down of the speed of printing machinery resulting in delay of printing of the daily newspaper. Another show cause notice dated 18 December 2023 was issued in respect of the conduct on 27 November 2023. Petitioner No.1 thereafter issued chargesheet and notice dated 22 December 2023 to the first Respondent alleging misconduct and willful absenteeism of duties from work.

5) To conduct the inquiry, one Mr. Arun P. Samant a practicing Advocate was appointed as enquiry officer. Respondent No.1 requested nomination of one Mr. Shishir Dhavale as his defence representative vide letter dated 16 January 2024. The request was rejected on the ground that Mr. Shishir Dhavale was neither a co- worker of the First Respondent nor he was office bearer of the trade union. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 requested engagement of Advocate Revan Nimbalkar as his defence representative vide letter dated 26 February 2024. Petitioners opposed the request for appointment of Advocate as his defence representative of the first Respondent on the ground that the Management Representative was neither an Advocate nor a legally trained mind and was merely working as General Manger in the Human Resource Management Department. The Enquiry Officer rejected the request of Respondent No.1 for appointment of Advocate as his defence representative. Aggrieved by the decision of the Enquiry Officer, Respondent No.1 filed complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) in the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practices and prayed for appointment of either Shishir Dhavale or Advocate Revan Nimbalkar as his defence representative. By an interim order dated 9 February 2024, the Industrial Court has allowed the application for interim relief filed by Respondent No.2 at Exhibit U-2 and has permitted the Advocate to act as his