Jharkhand High Court Rules Workman’s Appearance Via Counsel Amounts to Implied Consent for Management's Legal Representation

Ranchi, Jharkhand – The High Court of Jharkhand, in a significant ruling on labour law, has set aside a Labour Court order that debarred a company's advocate from representing it in an industrial dispute. Justice Deepak Roshan held that a workman's own appearance through a lawyer, even on a single occasion, constitutes an "implied consent" and a waiver of any objection to the management also being represented by a legal practitioner under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The court allowed the writ petition filed by M/s Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited, quashing the Jamshedpur Labour Court's order dated February 27, 2025.

Background of the Dispute

The case originated when a workman, Jay Prakash Singh, challenged his removal from service by M/s Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited before the Labour Court, Jamshedpur. Shortly after initiating the case, the workman filed a preliminary objection under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , opposing the company's representation by an advocate.

However, the Labour Court's records from October 4, 2024, noted that the workman himself had appeared through a counsel. Subsequently, on November 12, 2024, the management's advocate appeared and was granted an adjournment without any objection from the workman. Despite this, the Labour Court later allowed the workman's initial objection and debarred the management's advocate, prompting the company to approach the High Court.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner (M/s Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited): The company, represented by Advocate Nipun Bakshi, argued that the workman, by appearing through a lawyer himself, had waived his right to object to the company doing the same. They contended that this act amounted to implied consent. Furthermore, they asserted that the Labour Court, by accepting their advocate's adjournment application, had granted implied leave for their legal representation.

Respondent (Jay Prakash Singh): The workman, appearing in person, vehemently denied that he was ever represented by a counsel. He claimed the Labour Court's order sheet from October 4, 2024, was erroneous. He argued that since he never gave explicit consent, the management could not be represented by a legal practitioner as per the mandate of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Legal Principles and Court's Analysis

Justice Deepak Roshan centered the analysis on the interpretation of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . While Section 36(3) imposes a general bar on legal representation, Section 36(4) carves out an exception for proceedings before a Labour Court, provided two conditions are met: 1. Consent of the other parties. 2. Leave of the Court/Tribunal.

The court reiterated the settled legal position that both consent and leave can be either express or implied.

Citing precedents, including the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Paradip Port Trust vs. Their Workman (1977) , the High Court emphasized that the twin conditions of consent and leave are mandatory. However, it delved into the factual matrix to determine if these conditions were met through the conduct of the parties.

The court observed: > "In this case, though the workman filed a preliminary objection on 16.08.2024, he subsequently, appeared through an advocate on 04.10.2024. His subsequent conduct amounts to a waiver of his preliminary objection filed earlier in this case and amounts to deemed consent. Once the workman has appeared through an advocate on one of the dates fixed in the case, he cannot prevent the other side from being represented by an Advocate."

The court dismissed the workman’s claim that the order sheet was erroneous, stating that a court's record is conclusive unless a formal application for rectification is filed and accepted, which was not done in this case. The High Court found that the workman's failure to object when the management's lawyer appeared, combined with the Labour Court allowing the lawyer's application, fulfilled the requirements of implied consent and implied leave.

Final Decision and Directions

Finding that the Labour Court's order debarring the management's advocate was unsustainable in fact and law, the High Court quashed it.

In its concluding remarks, the court highlighted the importance of effective legal representation for all parties and directed the Labour Court to apprise the workman of his right to avail free legal assistance from the District Legal Services Authority, Jamshedpur. The Labour Court was also instructed to decide the main dispute expeditiously.