In

King Cobra Vs Rat & Ors. 

FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT

Do you know that no advocate or legal practitioner can represent your employer in a labour matter before a court if you object to his appearance?

Thus if you think you are less educated to defend yourself in a labour case, file an application under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the court. You will then see your boss and not his advocate standing face-to-face for quick resolution of the dispute. 

Legislative intent of the such provision is that an employee who is less educated should not be exposed to face a legally trained lawyer in court proceedings unless he himself is assisted by any lawyer.

This rider is intended to make balance in the quality of representations on behalf of an employee and his employer.

In the case of Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India Vs. Suraj Pal Sharma & Anr, it has been categorically held by the Delhi High Court that in any proceeding before a labour forum, a party to a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner only with the consent of the other parties to the proceeding and in that case the such consent has to be clear and positive.

As per law, you can object to the appearance of a legal practitioner even at a later stage of the proceedings. Your failure or inaction in raising the objection at an early stage would not be taken as your ‘implied consent’ to the lawyer’s appearance. You cannot be denied your right to object to the representation of the other party by a legal practitioner, as it will be against the spirit and content of the provisions of Section 36(4) of the I.D. Act.

Remember: As per Section 36(4), the consent of the other parties to the proceeding and the leave of the court are mandatory preconditions for the representation of a party by a legal practitioner.

The such judgment has been followed by another coordinate bench judgment in the case of Hindustan Motors, Ltd. And Presiding Officer and others.

The mere fact that an employee did not object earlier can not be the ground to deny him benefit under Section 36 of the Act to object to the appearance of his company through a lawyer at later stage.