Industrial Tribunal Allowing Legal Representation To Workman But Not Employer “Manifest Inequality”: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that Industrial Disputes Tribunal permitting the workman to be legally represented while denying the same representation to opposite party–the industry, amounts to "manifest inequality" violating principles of natural justice.
In doing so the court quashed Industrial Disputes Tribunal's order wherein workman's application under Section 36 Industrial Disputes Act, prohibiting AIIMS, Jodhpur to secure legal representation was allowed. Section 36 regulates representation of parties in industrial adjudication to maintain informality, as per which representation by a legal practitioner was permissible with the consent of the other party and with the leave of the Tribunal.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma said:
"In the present case, it is not disputed that the respondent is being represented by Shri Bhagirath Chandora, who is an enrolled advocate. 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. 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".
The high court held that statutory restriction under Section 36 could not be interpreted in a manner that permitted one party to enjoy the benefits of legal assistance while denying the same to the other party.
“…the learned Tribunal has failed to consider that discretion under Section 36 of the Act of 1947 must be exercised on sound judicial principles. Therefore, in the light of the fact that the respondent was effectively availing legal assistance; no prejudice would have been caused by permitting the petitioners to be represented through counsel.”
The respondent was appointed as a Nursing Office by the petitioner and thereafter removed after which the petitioner filed an industrial dispute. During the proceedings, an application under Section 36 was filed by him objecting to representation of the petitioner by its legal practitioner. This application was allowed by the Tribunal, and hence petitioner was filed.
It was argued by the petitioner that the respondent himself was being represented by a practicing advocate, and therefore could not adopt a contradictory stand.
This was opposed by the respondent with the submission that his legal practitioner was not representing him in professional capacity but as an officer bearer of the Union.
After hearing the contentions, the Court perused Section 36 and held that the provision did not create absolute bar on being represented by a legal practitioner, rather it conferred discretion on the Tribunal that had to be exercised judiciously and not mechanically.
The Court rejected the argument put forth by the respondent and held that merely appearing as an office bearer did not change the professional status of the legal practitioner, and especially when he was actively rendering legal assistance as an advocate.
In this light, it was held 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.”
It was held that letting one part being represented by a legal practitioner and accepting their objection to the same in respect of the other party would be contrary to the fundamental principle of parity.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the order by the Tribunal was set aside. The petitioners were permitted to be represented by the advocate of their choice.
Title: All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur & Ors. v Hansraj Sharma
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 128