Bombay High Court: While deciding a revision application filed by a small laundry employer against the Labour Court’s order refusing permission to appoint an advocate, a Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., held that such refusal was mechanical and unsustainable. The Court emphasised that under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’), representation through an advocate requires both consent of the opposite party and leave of the Court. The Court stated that expecting a small-time laundry proprietor, not legally trained, to conduct cross-examination against union representatives was absurd and would perpetuate inequality. Thus, denying him this right would cause prejudice and result in miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed, and the employer was permitted to be represented by an advocate of choice.
Background:
The case arose from the employment of a temporary worker in a small laundry establishment with 4—5 employees. The worker abruptly left the job without giving prior intimation or notice. After leaving, the worker approached the Labour Commissioner by filing an application seeking reinstatement, continuity in service, and back wages. The employer appeared and filed a reply, but since the worker did not pursue the matter, the Labour Commissioner closed the proceedings.
Later, the employer received summons from the 7th Labour Court, Bandra, and in those proceedings, the worker filed an application under Section 36 of the ID Act, asking that the employer should not be allowed to be represented by an Advocate. The employer submitted a written statement prepared by an Advocate but filed through his representative. When the worker filed evidence along with documents, the Labour Court directed the employer to begin cross-examination.
As the employer was not legally trained and found it difficult to conduct cross-examination and trial proceedings, he filed an application seeking permission to appoint an Advocate to represent him. On 01-12-2023, the Labour Court rejected this application, which led to the filing of the application before this Court.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the controversy revolved around the interpretation of Sections 36(3) and 36(4) of the ID Act. It was noted that while Section 36(3) of the ID Act imposes a complete embargo on representation through Advocates/Legal practitioners before the Conciliation Officer and the Labour Court/Tribunals, Section 36(4) of the ID Act permits representation before Labour Courts and Tribunals with both the consent of the opposite party and the leave of the Court. The Court emphasised that refusal of representation cannot be mechanical or solely based on objection but must be reasoned and justified.
The Court highlighted that the Labour Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the spirit of Section 36(4) of the ID Act, as its refusal was mechanical and did not consider whether denial of representation would cause prejudice or affect fairness. The Court observed that the right to defend one’s case effectively forms an integral part of the right to fair procedure under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court stated that expecting a small-time laundry proprietor, not legally trained, to conduct cross-examination against union representatives was absurd and would perpetuate inequality.
The Court further emphasised that “leave of the Court” must be interpreted in a broad and purposive manner to advance fairness and equality. It was observed that when a party demonstrates genuine inability to represent itself and seeks professional assistance without mala fides, the Labour Court ought to grant such leave unless strong reasons exist to the contrary. The Court highlighted that denial of representation in the present case did not advance the object of Section 36 of the ID Act but instead resulted in miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed, and the employer was permitted to be represented by an advocate of choice for conducting cross-examination, leading evidence, and advancing submissions.
[Bella Vista Drycleaners v. Vishwanath Kanojia, Civil Revision Application No. 94 of 2024, decided on 02-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Sunil Rajaram More, Advocate
Legal Aid Department: Shailesh S. Pathak, Appointed Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
