Complete Embargo On Appearance Of Advocates In Industrial Adjudication Is Confined To Conciliation Proceedings Alone: Jharkhand High Court

The writ application before the High Court was preferred by the Petitioner assailing the Order passed by the Labour Court allowing the application preferred by the Respondent-workman under Section 36(3) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, debarring the Petitioner’s advocate from representing it in the Reference.

The Single Bench of Justice Deepak Roshan held, “It is, therefore, evident 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 with the consent of the other parties and the leave of the Court.”

Advocate Nipun Bakshi represented the Petitioners while the Respondent appeared in person.

Factual Background

The Respondent workman instituted a case under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, challenging his removal from service. The workman filed a preliminary objection under Section 36(3) and (4) addressed to the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, challenging the appearance of an advocate for the Management. The Management appeared through its advocate and filed an application seeking adjournment. The petition seeking time for filing a reply/show cause petition was allowed by the Labour Court.

The Management then filed a reply asserting its right to be represented through an advocate. The Management pleaded that there was implied consent as well as deemed leave being granted by the Labour Court in allowing the adjournment application. The Respondent workman filed his rejoinder. The Labour Court debarred the advocate of the Management relying on the provisions in Section 36(3) & (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This order was under challenge in the writ petition.

Reasoning

Referring to Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which governs the representation of parties in disputes, the Bench held that the same primarily allows workers to be represented by members of a registered trade union and employers by an officer of an employers' association. It was noticed that a key restriction is in Section 36(3), which prohibits legal practitioners from representing parties in conciliation proceedings or before the Court. It further explained that 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.

“Thus, though Section 36(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, imposes a complete embargo on representation of parties through advocates/legal practitioners before the Conciliation Officer and the Labour Court/Tribunals; however, Section 36(4) of the Act of 1947, permits representation through a legal practitioner before Labour Courts and Tribunals with the consent of the other parties and the leave of the Court”, it stated.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that though the workman filed a preliminary objection on August 16, 2024, he subsequently appeared through an advocate on October 4, 2024. His subsequent conduct amounted to a waiver of his preliminary objection filed earlier, as well as a deemed consent. “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”, it added.

The Bench also took note of the fact that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, not only permitted the legal practitioner to file Vakalatnama but also allowed his adjournment application. “It is obvious that there was implied consent and implied leave of the Court. The subsequent withdrawal or allegation of wrong order is unsustainable. 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 on 04.10.2024”, it held.

Holding that there is no absolute prohibition on representation of any party before the Labour Court, the Bench made it clear that the restriction is confined to Conciliation proceedings only. The Bench decided the issue relating to implied consent and leave of the Court in favour of the Petitioner. “In the above facts and circumstances of the case and on close examination of the applicable law, there was no justification in debarring the Advocate/legal practitioner representing the Management. The order dated 27.02.2025 is unsustainable on facts and the law and, is hereby, set aside.”, the Bench held.

Allowing the application, the Bench ordered, “The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, should apprise the workman of his right to take legal assistance before proceeding any further in the case. It goes without saying that the Labour Court shall also decide the dispute expeditiously.”

Cause Title: M/s Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Jay Prakash Singh (Neutral Citation: 2025:JHHC:33112)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Nipun Bakshi, Shubham Sinha, Raunak Sahay

Respondent: In Person

Click here to read/download Order