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.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

CM APPL. 27780/2021 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

WP(C) 8929/2021 & CM APPL. 27779/2021 (for interim stay)

3. The present petition challenges order dated 19th March, 2021 by which Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, ld. counsel who was appearing for the Petitioner-Management was not permitted to represent his client before the Industrial Tribunal. His request for conducting the cross-examination of the Respondents-Workmen's witness was also rejected. After recording the statement of the witness, without affording the Petitioner-Management an opportunity for cross-examination, the evidence of the Workmen was closed. The impugned order reads as under:

"19.3.2021

Present: Sh. Rajesh Khanna, AR for the workmen alongwith workmen in person.

Sh. Vinay Sabharwal, Advocate is appearing for and on behalf of the management.

However, AR of the workmen has pointed out to the application filed by and one behalf of the workmen under Section 36 ID Act which was disposed of vide order dated 18.10.2018 in the light of non appearance of the Advocate representing the management earlier and also noting the presence of the representative of the management thereafter, as satisfied.

In the light of this order made on the application under Section 36 ID Act legal representation for the management is not permissible. No one is present on behalf of the management.

Affidavit of evidence of Sh. Tadkeshwar has been tendered in evidence. His examination in chief has been recorded as WW-23. Sh. Vinay Sabharwal, Advocate appearing for and on behalf of the management request for conducting the cross examination of WW-23. Request is declined. Witness is discharged after giving opportunity nil.

WE is closed on statement of the AR for the workman recorded separately.

One application has been filed by and on behalf of the management for recalling of the workmen whose statement has been recorded on 2.3.2021. In the light of the earlier order dated 18.10.2018, application is dismissed.

With regard to two deceased workmen namely Sh. Vidhya Narain and Sh. Shahbuddin no one is present today. Proceeding qua them is abated.

Put up for ME on 28.5.2021. Advance copy of the affidavit of evidence be supplied to the opposite party one week before the next date. Management is directed to complete its entire evidence within two effective dates."

4. Mr. Sabharwal, ld. counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Management submits that this order is completely contrary to the prevailing law on the issue inasmuch as Advocates are permitted to represent the management, so long as there is no objection by the workman or the litigation expenses are paid. He submits that in this case, the Management was being represented by an Advocate on several hearings. The Advocates who had appeared earlier for the Management, were Mr. Neeraj Kumar and Mr. Shashwat Singh Gaur. However, on one occasion, when the authorized representative i.e., the Accounts Manager was appearing on behalf of the Management, an order was passed on 18th October, 2018 recording that the authorized representative i.e., Mr. Sanjeev Jamwal and not Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate was appearing for the Management. The application filed by the Workmen under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was disposed of on that ground.

5. Mr. Sabharwal, ld. counsel submits that the authorized representative of the Management was appearing at the time when pleadings were being exchanged and other procedural formalities were being completed. However, when the matter reached the stage of trial, the Management thought it fit to engage the services of an Advocate for tendering evidence and conducting cross-examinations. Accordingly, Mr. Sabharwal had been engaged in the matter. However, for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, he was not permitted to represent the Management or cross-examine the witness of th