Recently, the Jharkhand High Court held that an employer or management can be represented by a legal practitioner before the Labour Court under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if there is implied consent of the opposite party and leave of the Court. The Court observed that once the workman himself appeared through an advocate, he could not subsequently object to the management being represented by one.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner-management challenged an order passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, which had debarred its advocate from appearing in an industrial dispute case filed by a workman contesting his removal from service. The workman had raised a preliminary objection under Section 36(3) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, objecting to the appearance of the management through a legal practitioner.
Subsequently, the workman himself appeared through an advocate, while the management’s counsel sought adjournment, which was granted by the Labour Court. However, at a later stage, the Labour Court debarred the management’s advocate, holding that no valid consent had been granted by the workman.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the workman’s appearance through counsel amounted to an implied waiver of his earlier objection. It was further submitted that the Labour Court, by allowing the adjournment application filed by the management’s counsel, had itself granted implied leave for representation. Therefore, the order debarring the management’s advocate was unsustainable, as both the statutory requirements of consent and leave stood satisfied.
Observations of the Court:
The Court extensively examined Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and clarified that while Section 36(3) imposes a bar on legal practitioners in conciliation proceedings, Section 36(4) permits representation before a Labour Court with the consent of the opposite party and leave of the Court.
The Bench emphasized that both consent and leave could be express or implied, observing, “The law is well settled that consent can be either express or implied. Leave can also be granted directly by the Labour Court, or it can be inferred when the Court permits an advocate to appear and allows any application filed by an advocate.”
The Court held that the workman’s own appearance through counsel amounted to a waiver of his objection, and his later claim that the record of his appearance was erroneous could not be accepted in the absence of any rectification application.
Relying on precedents such as Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workman and Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Maruti Chougule, the Court reaffirmed that the twin requirements of “consent of the other party” and “leave of the Court” must be satisfied, but consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. The Court also drew strength from rulings of the Patna High Court and Bombay High Court, which recognized implied consent and judicial discretion as sufficient grounds for allowing legal representation in the interest of justice and fair adjudication.
The decision of the Court:
Allowing the writ petition, the Jharkhand High Court set aside the Labour Court’s order debarring the management’s advocate. It held that the restriction on representation by lawyers applies only to conciliation proceedings and not to adjudicatory stages before the Labour Court. The Bench directed that the workman be informed of his right to seek legal assistance through the District Legal Services Authority, Jamshedpur, to ensure fair representation in further proceedings.
Concluding the matter, the Court remarked that effective legal representation is integral to ensuring justice and that the Labour Court must decide the dispute expeditiously.
Case Title: M/s Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Jay Prakash Singh
Case No.: W.P. (L) No. 2457 of 2025
Coram: Justice Deepak Roshan
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Nipun Bakshi, Shubham Sinha, Raunak Sahay
Advocate for Respondent: In Person
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
