VINAY CHODANKAR v. PHIL CORPORATION LTD.,
Denial of Legal Representation in Domestic Enquiry Violates Natural Justice: High Court Sets Aside Awards and Orders Fresh Evidence Before Labour Court.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-GOA:2526
Decision Date: 18-12-2025
List of Laws
Principles of Natural Justice; Industrial Disputes Act; Certified Standing Orders; Domestic Enquiry
- Facts: A workman, Shri Vinay Chodankar, challenged preliminary final awards of the Labour Court. He was subjected to a domestic enquiry following a charge sheet alleging misconduct. He sought representation by Vinoo Sawant, a trade union member, or alternatively, by an Advocate, arguing that the management was represented by a legally trained labour consultant. This request was denied based on the Certified Standing Orders, which allowed representation only by an office bearer of the trade union within the establishment.
- Procedural Posture: The workman filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the Labour Court's awards that upheld the fairness of the domestic enquiry and the proportionality of his dismissal.
- Issue: Did the denial of representation by an Advocate or Vinoo Sawant in the domestic enquiry, while the management was represented by a legally trained consultant, violate principles of natural justice and fair play, rendering the enquiry unfair? Further, should the Labour Court have allowed the employer to adduce additional evidence if the enquiry was deemed unfair?
- Holding: Yes, the denial of representation violated principles of natural justice, rendering the enquiry unfair. The impugned awards were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court with the direction to permit both parties to lead evidence.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Certified Standing Orders did not explicitly prohibit representation by an Advocate. Citing Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and others and C. L. Subramaniam Vs The Collector of Customs, Cochin, the Court emphasized that when the management is represented by a legally trained professional, denying the workman similar representation creates an unequal playing field and violates natural justice. The Court noted that the Labour Court and enquiry officer erred in not considering this aspect. The Court also relied on Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P.) Ltd. Vs Management and others, holding that the employer should be given an opportunity to lead evidence before the Labour Court to justify its actions if the enquiry is found to be defective. The Court directed the Labour Court to allow both parties to present evidence and decide the matter in accordance with the law.
🔒 For Members Only