D.Murugesan, J: This writ appeal is directed against the order in W.P.No.4157 of 1996 dated 29.4.2004. The question that frequently arises for consideration by Courts as to the right of an employee to seek for legal assistance through, his lawyer to defend the case in the disciplinary proceedings is put in as an issue in this case for our consideration. We are not narrating the entire factual aspects leading to the filing of the writ petition, except the following few facts in view of the disposal of the writ appeal on the limited questions involved.

2. The respondent, while he was working as Deputy General Manager (Management Services), was issued with a charge memo on 12.4.1991. After an enquiry, he was removed from service by an order dated 18.3.1992. On a challenge to the said order, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of removal. The learned Judge has held that the enquiry is vitiated for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as the request of the respondent for assistance of lawyer was rejected even when he was pitted against a legally trained person in the enquiry.

3. As the issue in question frequently arises for consideration, we propose to consider the same with reference to the settled law of the Supreme Courtright from the year 1960. In N.Kalindi v. M/s. Tata Locomotives and Engineering Company Limited, Jamshedpur.A.I.R.1960 S.C.914, it was contended on behalf of the workmen that the enquiry on the results of which the orders of dismissal were based was not a proper and valid enquiry inasmuch as the workmen were not allowed to be represented at the enquiry by a representative of that particular union to which the workmen belonged. It was also argued that fair play demands that at such an enquiry the workman concerned should have reasonable assistance for examination and cross examination of the witnesses and for seeing that proper records are made of the proceedings. While repelling the said contentions, in paragraphs 4 and 5, the Supreme Court has held as follows:

"It is helpful to consider in this connection the fact that ordinarily in enquiries before domestic tribunals the person accused of any misconduct conducts his own case. Rules have been framed by Government as regards the procedure to be followed in enquiries against their own employees. No provision is made in these rules that the person against whom an enquiry is held may be represented by anybody else. When the general practice adopted by domestic tribunals is that the person accused conducts his own case, we are unable to accept an argument that natural justice demands that in the case of enquiries into a charge-sheet of misconduct against a workman he should be represented by a member of his Union. Besides it is necessary to remember that if any enquiry is not otherwise fair, the workman concerned can challenge its validity in an industrial dispute. Our conclusion therefore is that a workman against whom an enquiry is being held by the management has no right to be represented at such enquiry by a representative of his Union, though of course an employer in his discretion can and may allow his employee to avail himself of such assistance."

In "Brooke Bond India (Private) Limited v. Subba Raman (S) and another (1961)2 L.L.J. 4117". the view taken in Kalindi’s case A.I.R. 1960, S.C. 916, was quoted by the Supreme Court with approval.

4. A similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in "The Dunlop Rubber Company (India) Limited v. Their Workmen (1965)2S.C.J.774: A.I.R.. 1965 S.C. 1392". While referring to the judgment in Kalindi’s case, A.I.R. 1960. S.C.916. the Supreme Court has observed as follows:

"The Tribunal was also wrong in thinking that there was a denial of natural justice because the workmen were refused the assistance of a representative of their own Union. Under the Standing Orders it is clearly provided that at such enquiries only a representative of a Union which i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document