Back
"No Lawyer for You, But Mine is Fine": Strikes Down Unequal Legal Representation in Labour Dispute
In a ruling emphasizing fairness in industrial tribunals ( & Ors. v. Hansraj Sharma , 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 128), the on April 7, 2026, quashed an order by the . Justice Anand Sharma held that barring from legal representation while allowing the workman Hansraj Sharma to be aided by an enrolled advocate—disguised as a union office bearer—creates "manifest inequality" and violates natural justice under .
From Nursing Officer to Tribunal Battleground
, a premier statutory institute under the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956, appointed Hansraj Sharma as a Nursing Officer. Following disciplinary proceedings, Sharma was terminated on March 23, 2023. He challenged this under before the Tribunal.
Amid proceedings, Sharma filed an application under Section 36 objecting to AIIMS's representation by advocate K.S. Yadav. The Tribunal allowed it on May 16, 2024, prompting AIIMS to approach the High Court via writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19575/2024).
Petitioners Cry Foul: "You Have a Lawyer, Why Not Us?"
AIIMS, represented by Ms. Nidhi Singhvi (for Mr. Deelip Kawadia), argued the Tribunal's order defied Section 36's scheme, which permits legal representation with opposite party consent and Tribunal leave—no absolute bar exists. They highlighted hypocrisy: Sharma was represented by Bhagirath Chandora, a practicing advocate appearing as a union office bearer. As a statutory body handling complex legal issues, AIIMS deserved counsel to avoid prejudice and uphold natural justice.
Reliance was placed on 's G.M, IB Valley Area, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. P.O., CGIT (MANU/OR/0970/2017), stressing equity when one side has legal expertise, and 's T.K. Varghese v. Nichimen Corporation (MANU/MH/0414/2001), advocating judicious discretion for parity.
Respondent's Defense: "He's No Lawyer, Just a Union Man"
Sunil Purohit, for Sharma, urged dismissal, insisting Section 36 restricts lawyers absent consent and leave. Chandora appeared as a union office bearer under , not professionally. He cited Supreme Court's Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Maruti Chougule (CA 6586/2019, 04.10.2023) and Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen ((1977) 2 SCC 339), upholding curbs on legal dominance, plus 's Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Hema Ram (S.B. CWP 13161/2022, 19.12.2023).
Parsing Section 36: Discretion, Not Dogma
Justice Sharma dissected Section 36, noting its aim for informal adjudication but allowing lawyers in Labour Courts/Tribunals via consent and leave under sub-section (4). This confers "discretion upon the Tribunal" to be exercised judiciously, not mechanically.
Crucially, the Court rejected Sharma's ploy: Chandora's advocate status meant he provided "legal assistance" despite the union label. Denying AIIMS parity defied equality. Precedents like Thyssen Krupp were distinguished—no imbalance there, unlike here.
Support came from T.K. Varghese (fairness mandate), (equity against trained lawyers), and 's Registrar, Anna University v. Presiding Officer (MANU/TN/3946/2023), warning of violations in one-sided setups.
Key Observations from the Bench
"The plea that he is appearing merely as an office bearer of the Union does not change his professional status, particularly when he, being an active legal practitioner and an advocate, in substance is rendering legal assistance."(Para 14)
"This Court finds that permitting one party to avail legal expertise while denying the same to the opposite party results in manifest inequality and violates the principles of natural justice. Industrial adjudication, though less formal, cannot be rendered one-sided."(Para 15)
"A statutory restriction under Section 36 of the Act of 1947 cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to permit one party to enjoy the benefit of legal assistance while denying the same to the other."(Para 19)
"In the case at hand, the Workers’ Union is being represented by Mr. D. Mohanta... a seasoned Practitioner... Thus, in order to maintain equity, learned CGIT ought to have allowed the prayer of the Management-petitioner."(Quoting , Para 20)
Level Playing Field Restored: Petition Allowed
The writ succeeded: the Tribunal's May 16, 2024 order was quashed. AIIMS may use K.S. Yadav or any advocate; the Tribunal must proceed expeditiously.
This sets a precedent for parity in labour forums, curbing "backdoor" lawyer use and mandating balanced discretion. Future tribunals must weigh effective legal aid on both sides to avoid writ reversals, promoting true industrial justice.
