( 1 ) PRESENT is an appeal under Clause- 15 of the Letters Patent against the decision dated 1. 10. 1999, passed in Special Civil application No. 6546 of 1999.

( 2 ) SHORT facts necessary for disposal of the present matter are that somewhere in the year 1996, a chargesheet was issued to the present appellant. Inquiry Officer was appointed, so also the Presenting Officer was appointed by the Company. The present appellant made an application to the establishment, that as the Presenting Officer is a Law graduate, undisputely not an advocate, the petitioner be also provided facility of an advocate for his proper representation. The application was turned down, inquiry proceeded and finally, the verdict was given against the workman and he was terminated. A Reference was made to the Labour Court. The Labour Court gave appropriate opportunity to the parties to prove that whether domestic inquiry was valid or was vitiated. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court observed that the inquiry was vitiated because of wrong rejection or unjust rejection of the workmans application for being represented by a legal practitioner. The said order dated 17th April, 1999 being not palatable to the establishment, the establishment came to this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6546 of 1999. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single judge held that a person who is simply holding a degree in Law cannot be equated with a practising advocate or a legally trained mind. The learned Single Judge, after giving his due consideration to the totality of the circumstances observed that the learned Labour Court was absolutely unjustified in holding that the inquiry was vitiated because of non-grant of permission in favour of the workman,

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment, the workman is before this Court.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that from the facts of the case, so also from the judgment of the Supreme court, it would clearly appear that if the establishment wants to have a walk over against the employee by taking advantage and assistance of the legally trained mind and permission of representation by an advocate is refused, then, such action of the management would vitiate the domestic inquiry. She has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matters of BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF port OF BOMBAY V/s. DILIPKUMAR raghavendranath NADKARNI, reported IN AIR 1983 SC 109, D. P maheshwari V/s. DELHI ADMN. and ors. , REPORTED IN 1983 LABOUR and industrial CASES, 1623, NATIONAL council FOR CEMENT AND BUILDING materials, REPORTED IN (1996) 3 SCC 206 AND COOPER ENGINEERING LTD. V/ s. P. P. MUNDHE, REPORTED IN AIR 1975 sc 1900 to submit that a walk over cannot be given to the establishment and, in any case, at an interim stage, the High Court should not interfere in the matter.

( 5 ) ON the matter of Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (supra), strong reliance was placed to contend that if in an inquiry before a domestic tribunal, delinquent is pitted against a legally trained mind, if he seeks permission to appear through a legal practitioner, the refusal to grant this request would amount to denial of a reasonable request to defend himself. In the present matter, it is not in dispute that the Presenting Officer though possessed degree of Law, but was neither a Law officer nor was a legally trained mind, but was holding office of the Personnel Officer. In the matter of the Board of Trustees (supra), the Supreme Court proceeded to consider the issue in light of the facts that the Chairman of the establishment awarded work: to two legally trained minds, namely, inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer, in the present matter, no evidence was brought before the learned Labour Court to prove the fact that the Presenting Officer was a legally trained mind. In the absence of such allegation, a simple degree in law in favour of someone would not make him a legally trained mind.