Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 3397
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Deepak Roshan, J
M/s Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited – Appellant
Versus
Jay Prakash Singh – Respondent
W.P. (L) No. 2457 of 2025
Important Points
Subject
Industrial Law - Employment Disputes
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Consent and Representation - Legal practitioners may represent parties with consent and leave of the court - Consent can be express or implied, as evidenced through conduct - The court supported the notion that attendance via counsel without objection waives the right to challenge representation. (Paras 11-12)
Facts of the case:
The case assessed the legality of a Labour Court's decision that barred the management's lawyer from representation after the workman challenged his removal. The incident regarding representation raised significant legal questions about consent and waiver in industrial contexts.
Findings of Court:
Both issues regarding the rights of representation and the implication of consent were resolved in favor of the Management, finding no justification for the barring of the advocate.
Issues: Whether the Management can be represented by an advocate and whether there was implied consent by the workman to representation by counsel?
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that both parties could represent through legal counsel provided there is consent and leave from the Labor Court, emphasizing the necessity of implied consent in cases where conduct has established acquiescence.
Result: The Labour Court's order debaring the advocate was set aside, allowing the writ application.
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate, Mr. Shubham Sinha, Adv, Mr. Raunak Sahay, Adv
For the Respondent: In Person
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. issues regarding representation in labour court. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. legal representation requires consent and court's leave. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. waiver of objections through conduct. (Para 10 , 17) |
| 4. writ application allowed, setting aside labour court's order. (Para 18 , 20) |
1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner assailing the Order dated 27.02.2025, passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, in I.D. Case No. 4 of 2024. This order allowed the application preferred by the Respondent-workman under Section 36 (3) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , debarring the Petitioner’s advocate from representing it in the Reference Case (I.D. Case No. 4/2024).
2. Briefly stated, the Respondent workman instituted a case under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, challenging his removal from service. The case was registered as I.D. Case No. 4 of 2024 on 08.08.2024.
On 16.08.2024, the workman filed a preliminary objection under Section 36 (3) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . This application is annexed to the Writ Petition as Annexure 6/1, and a bare glance reveals that it is addressed to the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Conciliation Officer. In the body of this petition, the error is rectified by mentioning that he raises a preliminary objection to the appearance of advocate for the Management. No reasons are assigned in this petition.
The Management appeared on 12.11.2024 through its advocate and filed an application seeking adjournment. The petition seeking time for filing reply/show cause petition was allowed by the Labour Court on this date. Thereafter, the Management filed a reply asserting its right to be represented through an advocate. The Management pleaded that there was implied consent as well as deemed leave being granted by the Labour Court in allowing the adjournment application filed on 12.11.2024.
The Respondent workman filed his rejoinder and referred to various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including the leading case of Paradip Port Trust vs. Their Workman ; (1977) 2 SCC 339 and Thyssen Krupp Industries India Private Limited and Others vs. Suresh Maruti Chougule and Others ; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1770).
The Labour Court by its order dated 27.02.2025 has debarred the advocate of the Management relying on the provisions in Section 36 (3) & (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . This order is under challenge in the writ petition. 3. On the basis of the claims and documents filed by the Parties the following issues arise for determination:
Issues:
Whether the Petitioner Management can be represented by an Advocate/legal practitioner under Section 36 (3) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court ?
Whether the Learned Labour Court had granted leave and whether there was implied consent from the workman to the appearance of the Petitioner Management by its Advocate ?
4. The Management, in support of its contention, has referred to the entire order sheet annexed to the Writ Petition. The Management specifically refers to the order dated 04.10.2024, on which date the workman had filed attendance through counsel. For brevity, the order passed on this date is reproduced below:
“4.10.24. Workman file attendance through counsel. Record put up on 12.11.24 for S/R”.
5. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner- Management submits that even though the workman had initially filed a preliminary objection petition under Section 36 (3) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , he subsequently, appeared through counsel on this later date, which amounts to a waiver of his objection. On the very next date fixed in the case, which was 12.11.2024, the Management's Advocate appeared and filed an adjournment application, which was allowed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur. On this date also, there was no objection recorded by the Ld. Labour Court.
6. He further argued
