M/S. BELLA VISTA DRYCLEANERS v. VISHWANATH KANOJIA, AKHIL BHARTIYA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION AND ANR.
Right to Legal Representation: High Court clarifies the scope of Section 36(4) of the ID Act, emphasizing fairness and the right to effective defense for small-scale employers in Labour Court proceedings.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:52361
Decision Date: 02-12-2025
List of Laws
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; The Advocates Act, 1961; Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 21; Principles of Natural Justice
Case Brief
- Facts: M/s. Bella Vista Drycleaners, a small laundry employing 4-5 persons, faced a labor dispute initiated by Respondent No. 1, a former employee, seeking reinstatement and back wages. The Labour Court rejected the Applicant's request to be represented by an advocate in the proceedings, citing Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Applicant, arguing a lack of legal expertise, filed a Civil Revision Application challenging this rejection.
- Procedural Posture: The case reached the Bombay High Court as a Civil Revision Application against the Labour Court's order denying the Applicant-employer the right to be represented by an advocate. The High Court appointed an advocate through the Legal Aid Department to assist the Court in deciding the issue.
- Issue: Whether a small-scale employer can be denied legal representation by an Advocate in proceedings before the Labour Court, particularly when the employer claims a lack of legal expertise and the proceedings involve cross-examination and interpretation of statutory provisions; and whether the Labour Court's discretion under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was properly exercised.
- Holding: The High Court quashed and set aside the Labour Court's order, holding that the denial of legal representation to the Applicant was unsustainable. The Applicant was permitted to be represented by an Advocate of their choice before the Labour Court.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Labour Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the letter and spirit of Section 36(4) of the ID Act, which allows for legal representation with the consent of the other party and the leave of the Court. The Court found that the Labour Court's refusal was mechanical and solely based on the employee's objection, without considering whether denial of representation would cause prejudice to the employer or affect the fairness of the proceedings. The High Court emphasized that the right to defend oneself effectively is an integral part of the right to a fair procedure under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court also noted that the expression "leave of the Court" under Section 36(4) must be interpreted broadly to advance the cause of justice, especially when a party demonstrates a genuine inability to represent itself. The Court relied on previous Supreme Court decisions, including Paradip Port Trust, Paradip Vs. Their Workmen and Thyssen Krupp Industries India Private Limited and Others, to support its interpretation of Section 36(4).