Appearance Of Workman Through Advocate Amounts To Deemed Consent For Employer's Legal Representation: Jharkhand High Court

In Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Jay Prakash Singh, a single-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Justice Deepak Roshan held that 'consent' under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act (IDA) need not be explicit and that implicit consent of the other parties is sufficient.In this case, the Labour Court had ruled in favour of the respondent-workman and debarred Alembic Pharmaceuticals from being represented by an advocate before it.The High Court examined the scheme of Section 36 of the IDA and held:9. Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which governs the representation of parties in disputes, primarily allows workers to be represented by members of a registered trade union and employers by an officer of an employers' association. A key restriction is in Section 36(3), which prohibits legal practitioners from representing parties in conciliation proceedings or before the Court…However Section 36(4) permits legal representation before a Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal with the consent of the opposing party and the leave of that judicial body.The Court held that the complete embargo on the appearance of advocates in industrial adjudication is confined to conciliation proceedings alone. A party to a proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can be represented by a legal practitioner if the “twin test” conditions are satisfied namely, the consent of the other parties and the leave of the court.The High Court further held that such consent of the other party and leave of the court may be either express or implied. It observed:11. At this stage it is pertinent to indicate that 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 Labour Court permits an advocate to appear and allows any application filed by an advocate.In interpreting what may constitute 'implicit consent' of the other party, the Court held that the appearance of the workman through an advocate amounts to deemed consent. It observed, “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.”In interpreting when the leave of the court can be said to have been granted, the Court noted that when the Labour Court permitted the legal practitioner to file a vakalatnama and allowed an adjournment application, then:“It is obvious that there was implied consent and implied leave of the Court... The Labour Court's order-sheet reflects the factual developments which suggest implied consent as well as waiver of the objection by the workman who himself appeared through a legal practitioner…”Thus, the High Court set aside the order of the Labour Court and allowed Alembic Pharmaceuticals to be represented by a lawyer.Mr. Nipun Bakshi appeared for the petitioner, and the respondent-workman appeared in person.Case Title: M/s Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Jay Prakash SinghLL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 82Click Here To Read/Download Order

Appearance Of Workman Through Advocate Amounts To Deemed Consent For Employer's Legal Representation: Jharkhand High Court

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Appearance Of Workman Through Advocate Amounts To Deemed Consent For Employer's Legal Representation: Jharkhand High Court

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers