Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Milind N.Jadhav
Bella Vista Drycleaners – Appellant
Versus
Vishwanath Kanojia, Akhil Bhartiya General Kamgar Union – Respondent
JUDGEMENT :
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
1. Heard Mr. More learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Pathak learned appointed Advocate to assist the Court. None appears for Respondents despite being served.
2. On 15.09.2025, after hearing Mr. More, learned Advocate for Applicant the following order was passed:-
“1. Heard, Mr. More learned Advocate for Applicant - Employer.
2. Reference (IDA) No. 158-D of 2021 is heard by 7th Labour Court, Bandra, Mumbai. A preliminary issue as to whether the Applicant employer can be allowed to be represented by Advocate in the Reference is the question which is decided in the negative, agitated before me. Applicant is a small time laundry employing 4-5 persons. In Reference (IDA), Revision Applicant being the First Party – employer filed Application below Exh. C-5 seeking a direction and permission from Labour Court to engage / appoint Advocate to represent its case in the present matter and conduct cross-examination. That Application is comprehensively rejected by virtue of the impugned order appended at page Nos. 38-49 of the Revision Application.
3. Mr. More would draw my attention to the impugned order and submit that in view of the extant decisions, passed by
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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prevails over the Advocates Act, requiring express consent and court leave for legal representation in industrial disputes.
The rights of representation under Sections 36(1) and (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are unconditional and independent of the conditions in Section 36(4).
Consent previously given for legal representation cannot be revoked merely due to a change of advocate, ensuring fair representation in labor disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties in an industrial dispute are permitted to engage legal practitioners on their behalf before the Labour Court, subject to certain condi....
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the impact of the Allahabad High Court judgment declaring Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 unconstitutional on the case and th....
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
