Bombay High Court Rules Workman Not Entitled to Legal Representation in Domestic Inquiry: Holds Legal Representation Only Allowed If Employer’s Presenting Officer is Legally Trained, Inquiry Officer’s Legal Background Irrelevant

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court set aside the order of the Industrial Court, which had allowed a workman to engage an advocate as his defense representative in a domestic inquiry. The Court ruled that a workman is only entitled to legal representation in a domestic inquiry if the management’s presenting officer is legally trained. The Court clarified that the mere fact that the inquiry officer is a practicing advocate does not, by itself, grant the workman the right to legal representation.

The Court emphasized that the law is well-settled: a legally trained presenting officer on behalf of the employer could justify legal representation for the workman. However, in this case, no such evidence was presented, and hence, the workman was not entitled to an advocate in the domestic inquiry.

Facts of the Case

• The petitioner (employer) is a publishing company that prints multiple newspapers, including Indian Express and Loksatta.
• The workman (Respondent No. 1) was employed as a Rotary Assistant in the production department.
• He was accused of negligence and misconduct, including causing the wastage of 3,863 copies of the Loksatta newspaper and deliberately slowing down the printing machinery, leading to delays.
• The employer issued a show-cause notice followed by a chargesheet for willful absenteeism and misconduct.
• A domestic inquiry was initiated, and an advocate was appointed as the inquiry officer.
• The workman requested legal representation, which was denied on the ground that the management’s representative was not a legally trained person but merely a General Manager (HR).
• The workman filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, alleging unfair labor practices and obtained an interim order allowing him to be represented by an advocate.
• The employer challenged this order in the Bombay High Court, arguing that the Industrial Court had erred in allowing an advocate when the management representative was not legally trained.

Issues Before the Court

1. Does a workman have an inherent right to legal representation in a domestic inquiry?
2. Can a workman engage an advocate if the inquiry officer is a practicing lawyer?
3. Should a management representative be considered a legally trained mind based on their experience, even if they are not a lawyer?
4. Did the Industrial Court err in allowing the workman legal representation in the absence of a legally trained management representative?

Petitioner’s (Employer’s) Arguments

The employer argued that:

1. Model Standing Orders Do Not Provide for Legal Representation
   • Clause 25(4) of the Model Standing Orders states that a workman can either represent himself or be defended by a co-worker or a trade union representative.
   • There is no provision allowing an advocate to act as a defense representative.
2. Legal Representation is Only Allowed When the Employer’s Representative is a Legally Trained Mind
   • Courts have consistently held that a workman is only entitled to legal representation if the management representative is legally trained.
   • The management representative in this case was not a lawyer, did not hold a legal degree, and had no formal legal training.
3. The Inquiry Officer’s Legal Background is Irrelevant
   • The employer relied on Ajit Bhagwan Sawant v. Parveen Industries Pvt. Ltd., where the Bombay High Court ruled that the legal qualifications of an inquiry officer do not entitle a workman to legal representation.
   • The inquiry officer is neutral and does not act as a prosecutor.
4. Allowing Legal Representation Would Complicate the Inquiry
   • Domestic inquiries are meant to be simple, fact-finding processes.
   • Permitting an advocate would convert it into a legal proceeding, delaying the process and making it more complex.

Respondent’s (Workman’s) Arguments

The workman contended that:

1. The Management Representative Had Legal Knowledge
   • The management’s presenting officer was a General Manager (HR) who had studied labor laws in his postgraduate degree.
   • He had experience handling multiple domestic inquiries.
2. Legal Representation is Required for Fairness
   • The Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra v. Delhi University held that denying a workman legal representation when the employer has a legally trained presenting officer violates natural justice.
   • A legally trained officer, even without a law degree, is more experienced in handling inquiries, creating an unequal playing field.
3. Engagement of a Lawyer is Justified in Certain Cases
   • The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Venkatraman Sambamurthy v. Union of India held that a non-lawyer with vast experience in conducting inquiries can be considered a legally trained mind.
   • Since the management representative had experience in multiple inquiries, he should be treated as legally trained.
4. The Inquiry Officer Was an Advocate
   • Since the inquiry officer was a practicing lawyer, the workman should also be entitled to legal representation.

Analysis of the Law

The Court analyzed key precedents regarding legal representation in domestic inquiries:

• Ajit Bhagwan Sawant v. Parveen Industries Pvt. Ltd.
  • Held that an inquiry officer’s legal qualifications do not entitle a workman to legal representation.
  • Only a legally trained presenting officer can justify legal representation.
• Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Nadkarni
  • If the employer engages legally trained presenting officers, the workman must be given legal representation.
• J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.
  • Recognized that denying legal representation when the workman is pitted against a legally trained opponent is unfair.
• Ramesh Chandra v. Delhi University
  • The Supreme Court held that if an inquiry officer is a retired judge or a legal expert, then denying the workman an advocate is unfair.
• Venkatraman Sambamurthy v. Union of India
  • Recognized that an experienced officer without a law degree could still be considered legally trained.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The Management Representative Was Not Legally Trained
   • There was no specific evidence that the management representative had handled multiple domestic inquiries.
   • Mere experience in HR does not make someone legally trained.
2. The Inquiry Officer’s Legal Background is Irrelevant
   • The inquiry officer is neutral and does not represent the employer.
   • The workman is only entitled to legal representation if the employer’s presenting officer is legally trained.
3. The Industrial Court Erred in Its Decision
   • The Industrial Court relied on incorrect assumptions and wrongly allowed the workman an advocate.
   • There was no evidence of inequality of representation to justify legal representation.

Conclusion

• The Bombay High Court quashed the Industrial Court’s order and ruled that the workman was not entitled to an advocate.
• The Court reaffirmed the principle that legal representation is only allowed when the employer’s presenting officer is legally trained.

Implications

✅ Employers can deny legal representation unless their presenting officer is legally trained.
✅ Workmen must provide strong evidence that they are pitted against a legally trained representative.
✅ The ruling strengthens the distinction between an inquiry officer and a presenting officer.
✅ Reaffirms the limited scope of judicial intervention in domestic inquiries.

This judgment reinforces the established legal position and sets a precedent for future domestic inquiries in India.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Converts Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide, Modifies Life Sentence After Holding That the Killing Occurred in a Sudden Fight Without Premeditation Under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC