YESHWANT HARICHANDRA GHARAT Vs. CLAIRANT CHEMICALS I LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Court rejecting the Revision Application filed by him against the order of the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.27 of 2009 rejecting his application for interim reliefs. In the Complaint, the Petitioner had sought various reliefs. Ms. Jane Cox, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, however, restricted the Petitioner's case to allowing him to be represented by a legal practitioner or one Arjun Singh Rajput, a workman. In the Complaint, the Petitioner filed an application for interim reliefs under section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) to restrain the Respondents, inter alia, from proceeding with the enquiry against him, without providing him the assistance of a legal practitioner or the said workman. The Labour Court rejected this interim application. The Petitioner filed the said Revision Application against this order, which was rejected by the impugned order.

(2.) The Petitioner is an employee of Respondent No.l Respondent No.2 is the Enquiry Officer appointed in respect of a disciplinary enquiry against the Petitioner.

(3.) The few factual aspects which require appreciation in turn lead to a question of law of some importance. The question of law that falls for consideration is whether a workman is entitled to the assistance of a lawyer when the Presenting Officer/ Management Representative is a legally trained person if the facts are simple and not complicated. I have come to the conclusion that the Presenting Officer is a legally trained person and that the facts are not simple. I have answered the question of law in the affirmative. The Petitioner has, therefore, succeeded in his application for the assistance of a legal practitioner.