IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12 / 04 / 2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NOS.19001 TO 19004 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS The Management of M/s. Chidambaram Shipcare Pvt. Ltd., No.38, Second Line Beach, First Floor, Chennai – 600 001. Rep. by Managing Director ... Petitioner in all WPs' Versus 1.The Presiding Officer Principal Labour Chennai. ... 1st Respondent in all WPs' 2.M.Baskar ... 2nd Respondent in W.P.No.19001 / 2009 3.R.Yourey ... 2nd Respondent in W.P.No.19002 / 2009 4.M.Murray ... 2nd Respondent in W.P.No.19003 / 2009 5.K.Munusamy ... 2nd Respondent in W.P.No.19004 / 2009 PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of certiorari, calling for the records connected with A.P.Nos.1 of 2007, 2 of 2007, 3 of 2007 and 4 of 2007 respectively, in I.D.No.587 of 1995 on the file of the 1st respondent Principal Labour Court, Chennai and to quash the common order dated 30.06.2009 made therein. For Petitioner : Mr.Sanjay Mohan for M/s.Ramasubramaniam & Associates For Respondent-2 in all WPs' : Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan for M/s.Fennwalter Association https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C O M M O N O R D E R The writ petitioner is a Shipping Industry. The second respondent in each of the writ petition was the workman employed by the writ petitioner. According to the workmen, there were about 110 permanent workers including staff were employed by the writ petitioner. The Socialist Workers Union (Shortly "the Union") is the only Trade Union functioning in the writ petitioner company and all the permanent workmen were its Members. 2.According to the workmen, the writ petitioner failed to resolve the dispute relating to revision of wages and other service conditions forcing the Union to take up the matter before the Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act (Shortly "the Act"). The conciliation ended in failure resulting in the Government passing an order referring the industrial dispute relating to their charter of demands for adjudication by the first respondent – Labour Court. The first respondent – Labour Court took it on file as I.D.No.587 of 1995. Ever since the dispute was pending, the writ petitioner started victimising the workers for their legitimate trade union activities. 10 workmen were not made permanent though they put in long years of service. Hence, the Union raised a dispute regarding their permanency and the industrial dispute relating to the permanency is pending in I.D.No.472 of 1998 before the first respondent. 3.In 2002, the writ petitioner imposed a partial lay off to all the workers and the Union raised an industrial dispute questioning the lay off and failure report dated 15.12.2003 was submitted as the conciliation ended in failure. In the meantime, 19 permanent workers were terminated on the ground that Chidambaram Ship Care was closed. According to the workmen, the Management took a dubious stand that there are two industries namely, Chidambaram Ship Care and Chidambaram Ship Care Pvt. Ltd., and those establishments are different entities. It was a malafide act to victimise the workmen. 4.According to the workmen, they were not allowed to report duty on 06.02.2004 and the workmen sent telegram to the Management about the same. The Management put up a notice on 06.02.2004 stating that the workmen indulged in strike. The Union also sent a letter dated 11.02.2004 to the writ petitioner complaining unfair labour practice and illegal lay off. 5.The Management sent a letter dated 14.02.2004 to the individual workers complaining that the workmen were on strike. In the said letter, it is also admitted that the Management imposed lay off. The Management sent another letter to the workers on 18.02.2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stating that they have suspended the operations carried on by Chidambaram Ship Care from 09.02.2004. According to the Union, the Management was still carrying on their business with Casual Labourers and the alleged suspension of operation is false. 6.The Union wrote letters dated 16.02.2004, 19.02.2004 and 23.02.2004 to the Labour Department to initiate action against the writ petitioner for committing unfair labour practice. While so, according to the Union, the writ petitioner sought to remove the machineries clandestinely on 26.02.2004 and they apprehended insecurity to their employment and they protested for removing the machineries. 7.On the other hand, it was the claim of the writ petitioner that the respondent workmen and others prevented the lorry bearing registration No.TN01-J-3124 from getting it loaded with the materials and threatened, intimidated and abused the loading workmen in filthy language and further, they obstructed the lorry from proceeding further to go out of the work spot. 8.The alleged incident on 26.02.2004 became the subject matter of charge memo dated 28.02.2004 issued to five workmen, including the four contesting respondents involved in the batch of writ petitions. The allegation made therein was that they prevented the loadmen from loading the materials in the lorry and they abused and intimidated the loadmen and that they prevented the lorry from going outside the factory premises. They committed misconduct under Clause 16 (j) of the Model Standing Orders. 9.The workmen gave explanation denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, a common enquiry was conducted by an outsider. In the enquiry, three witnesses were examined on the side of the Management and five witnesses were examined on the side of the workmen. Documents Exs. M1 to M7 were marked on the side of the Management and Exs.W1 to W17 were marked on the side of the workmen. 10.The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 25.08.2004 holding that the charges were established. Based on his findings, the respondent workmen herein were dismissed from service by an order dated 20.10.2004. However, proceeding was dropped as against one workman by name Mr.A.Raju stating that he reached the age of superannuation during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. Along with the dismissal order, the workmen were given one month wages in compliance with Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. 11.Since I.D.No.587 of 1995 was pending before the first respondent, the writ petitioner filed applications in A.Nos.1 to 4 of 2007 respectively under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act seeking approval of the dismissal order. The respondent workmen filed counter https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ statement in the approval applications questioning the validity of the enquiry. It was their case that the enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. They pleaded that though the Presenting Officer of the Management was a Law Graduate, who was legally trained, the workmen were not permitted to have the assistance of the Officer Bearer of the Union Mr.Dhanapalan, on the ground that he was a practicing Advocate. It was their further case that the Enquiry Officer refused permission to examine Mr.Dhanapalan as a witness in the enquiry on behalf of the workmen. Hence, the enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. It was also pleaded that the dismissal was not in accordance with the Model Standing Orders, as the past record was not taken into account as contemplated under the Model Standing Orders while dismissing them from service and hence, the dismissal orders were passed in contravention of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. It was their further case that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse and that the action of the writ petitioner amounts to victimisation and the writ petitioner committed unfair labour practices. Before the first respondent, both the parties did not let in any oral evidence and only documents Exs.P1 to P51 were marked on the side of the writ petitioner. 12.After hearing both sides, the first respondent passed the common order dated 30.06.2009 in A.Nos.1 to 4 of 2007 in I.D.No.587 of 1995 rejecting the approval applications on the ground that enquiry was not conducted fairly. The approval applications were also rejected on other grounds namely the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse and that the writ petitioner was guilty of victimisation and also committed unfair labour practices. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitions. 13.Heard the submissions made on either side. 14.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no certified Standing Orders certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Model Standing Orders prescribed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 governed the conditions of service of the workmen employed by the writ petitioner. The Model Standing Orders do not provide for the assistance of a Lawyer and since the Union leader, whose assistance was sought by the workmen, was a practicing Lawyer, the workmen are not entitled to have the assistance of a Lawyer under the garb of a Trade Union leader. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the findings of the first respondent as to victimisation and perversity of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, have no basis. He made elaborate submissions on the merits (facts) of the case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions in support of his contention that the workmen are not entitled to have the assistance of a Trade Union leader. (i)Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in BIECCO LAWRIE LTD., VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [2009 (10) SCALE 334] (ii)Division Bench judgment of this Court in STATE BANK OF INDIA REP. BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [2007(2)LLJ 968]. (iii)Judgment of this Court in S.MUTHURAMAN VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND THE MANAGEMENT OF SREE NITHYAKALYANI TEXTILES LTD. [2003 (III) LLJ 52] (iv)Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in D.G.RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE AND OTHERS VS. K.RAGHURAM BABU [2008 (4) SCC 406] (v)Judgment of this Court in S.SINGARAVELU VS. GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY in W.P.No.13196 of 2001 (decided on 13.07.2007) (vi)Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in BROOKE BOND INDIA (PRIVATE) LTD. VS. SUBBA RAMAN [1961 (II) LLJ 417] (vii)Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in EMPLOYERS MANAGEMENT WEST BOKARO COLLIERY OF TISCO LTD. VS. CONCERNED WORKMAN, RAM PRAVESH SINGH [2008 (3) SCC 729] (viii)Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in SYNDICATE BANK VS. VENKATESH GURURAO KURATI [2006 (3) SCC 150] (ix)Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in HARINARAYAN SRIVASTAV VS.UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK [1997 (4) SCC 384] (x)Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in BHARAT IRON WORKS VS. BHAGUBHAI BALUBHAI PATEL [1976 (1) SCC 518] The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on some judgments in support of his contention that the first respondent exceeded its jurisdiction, while dealing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and as to its findings on victimisation. 16.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the workmen submitted that there is no infirmity in the findings of the first respondent that the enquiry was not conducted fairly and the enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel took me through the enquiry proceedings and submitted that the Presenting Officer was a Man of Law and therefore, equal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ opportunity requires that the workmen should also be permitted to have the assistance of a Trade Union leader or an Advocate of their choice. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no prohibition in the Model Standing Orders to have the assistance of a Trade Union leader or an Advocate. According to him, the Model Standing Orders is silent on the assistance to workmen in the domestic enquiry. It was submitted that the Model Standing Orders is also silent as to the appointment of Presenting Officer by the writ petitioner in the domestic enquiry to represent the case of the writ petitioner. Since they travelled beyond the Model Standing Orders and had the benefit of a Presenting Officer, that too a Law Graduate, the workmen are also entitled to have the assistance of a Trade Union Leader or a Lawyer. 17.The learned counsel for the workmen submitted that when the Presenting Officer of the writ petitioner Management was a legally trained mind, even if the Model Standing Orders prohibit assistance of Trade Union leader or an Advocate, the workmen are also entitled to have the assistance of a Trade Union leader or an Advocate. It was further submitted that the Model Standing Orders is silent as to the appointment of an "outsider" as the Enquiry Officer and there is no provision providing for an outsider as an Enquiry Officer. If the writ petitioner had chosen to appoint an outsider as an Enquiry Officer and also a Presenting Officer with legally trained mind, when there is no provision in the Model Standing Orders, the same yardstick should be applied in the case of workmen by permitting them to have the assistance of the Office bearer of the Trade Union. The learned counsel further submitted that the findings of the first respondent as to the perversity of the findings of the Enquiry Officer does not suffer from any infirmity. It was also submitted that it is a clear case of victimisation for trade union activities as almost all the work force were wiped out during the pendency of the industrial dispute in I.D.No.587 of 1995 claiming increase in wages and improvement in the conditions of service. 18.The learned counsel for the workmen submitted that taking into account the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, the workmen have absolute right to have the assistance of an Office Bearer of a Trade Union in domestic enquiry. 19.The learned counsel for the workmen relied on the following judgments in support of his contention: i)Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HINDUSTAN TELEPRINTERS LTD., VS. M.RAJAN ISAAC [2005 (2) LLN 853] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ii)Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY VS. DILIPKUMAR RAGHAVENDRANATH NADKARNI [1983 (1) LLJ 1] iii)Judgment of this Court in K.KABALI VS. THE ASSISTANT SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY [1999 (1) CTC 450] iv)Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in UNION OF INDIA VS. KARUNAKARAN NAIR [1986 (1) LLJ 124] v)Judgment of the Delhi High Court in DELHI BOTTLING CO. PVT. LTD., VS. A.N.TRIPATHI [1994 (1) LLJ 1207] vi)Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in G.V.ASWATHANARAYANA VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [1993 (1) LLN 689] vii)Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in A.R.KAVI VS. KARNATAKA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION [1993 (1) LLN 691] viii)Judgment of the Bombay High Court in RAM NARESH TRIPATI VS. S.D.RANE [1992 (II) LLJ 519] ix)Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORT PVT. LTD. VS. B.K.ETALE [1984 (II) LLJ 121] x)Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in VENKATRAMAN SAMBAMURTHY VS. UNION OF INDIA [1986 (II) LLJ 62] xi)Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in J.K.AGGARWAL VS. HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. [1991 (II) LLJ 412] The learned counsel also relied on some other judgments on merits to sustain the order of the first respondent on merits and victimisation. 20.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the entire materials available on record. 21.The issue arises for consideration in all these writ petitions is whether the employer conducted a fair enquiry complying with the principles of natural justice and whether the workmen were given equal opportunity in defending them in the enquiry. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 22.The workmen have categorically stated in their counter filed before the first respondent that the enquiry was not held fairly and properly and that they were not given reasonable opportunity. It was further pleaded that the enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. On seeing the counter statement, the writ petitioner did not choose to file an application seeking permission to let in evidence, in the event, the first respondent comes to the conclusion that the enquiry was not fairly conducted. In those circumstances, the workmen would succeed, if the preliminary point as to the unfairness of the enquiry, is held in their favour and there is no need to go into the merits of the case and other issues. 23.In this regard, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in SHAMBHU NATH GOYAL VS. BANK OF BARODA [1983 (4) SCC 491] wherein, it has been held that in an application filed by the employer under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act seeking approval of dismissal, if the workman questioned the fairness of the domestic enquiry, that preceded the order of dismissal, in the counter statement filed opposing the approval application and if the employer failed to file proper application on seeing the counter of workman, seeking opportunity to let in evidence to substantiate the dismissal order, if the finding on the issue as to fairness of the enquiry was held against them, the Labour Court / Tribunal could straight away reject the approval application on rendering a finding on the issue relating to fairness of the enquiry against the employer, without going into merits and other aspects of the matter. This judgment was later approved by the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Apex Court in KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. VS. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA (SMT) AND ANOTHER [2001 (5) SCC 433]. Therefore, if the first respondent is correct in holding that the enquiry was not fairly conducted, I need not go into merits of the case and the employer must fail, as the learned counsel for the writ petitioner fairly submitted that they did not file any application seeking opportunity to let in evidence. 24.The first respondent held that since the workmen were not permitted to have the assistance of the office bearer of their Union, who was a practicing advocate, when the writ petitioner had the benefit of law graduate to represent their case in the domestic enquiry, the enquiry was not fairly conducted. Now, the correctness of the aforesaid conclusion of the first respondent is the issue that has to be answered. 25.The following passage from the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer is extracted hereunder: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "mLj;jjhf Fw;w rhl;L CHpah;fs; vGg;gpa[s;s nfs;tp r';fj;jpd; Jizj;jiytiu tprhuizapy; fye;J bfhs;s mDkjpg;gJ rk;ge;jkhdJ/ tprhuiz mjpfhup jpU/jdghyd; vd;gth; epWtdj;jpy; gzpg[hpgtuh vd nfl;l bghGJ ,th;fs; jpU/jdghyd; j';fs; fk;bgdpapy; gzpg[hpgth; my;y vd;W bjhptpj;jdh;/ tprhuiz mjpfhhp eph;thfj;jpd; manager- aplk; mtuJ gjpypid ,J rk;ge;jkhf nfl;lhh;/ jpU/jdghyd; vd;gth; xU tHf;fwp"h;/ Mfnt mDkjpf;fTlhJ vd eph;thfj;jpd; nknd$h; Twpdhh;/ eph;thfj;jpd; jug;gpy; tprhuizapy; gpujpepjpahf M$h; MtJ ahh; vd tprhuiz mjpfhpahy; tpztg;gl;l bghGJ jpU/RMh;/nfhtpe;juh$d;. Manager – HRD & IR mth;fs; M$uhtjhf bjhptpj;jhh;/ Fw;wr;rhl;L CHpah;fs; jug;gpy; ,Ue;J mjw;F Ml;nrgid vGg;gg;gl;lJ/ mth;fs; jpU/nfhtpe;juh$d; B.A.B.L. goj;jth;. mth; tHf;fwp"h; vd;W bjhptpj;jdh;/ jpU/nfhtpe;juh$d; jhd; rl;lk; goj;j gp//vy; gl;ljhhp vdj; bjhptpj;jhh;/ tprhuiz mjpfhhp eph;thfj;jpd; gpujpepjp xU rl;lk; goj;jth; vd;gjhy; Fw;w rhl;L CH[pah;fs; jug;gpy; xU tHf;fwp"uhf ,Ue;jhYk; jpU/ jdghyd; mth;fis mDkjpf;f ntz;Lk; vd bjhptpj;jhh;/ eph;thfj;jpd; gpujpepjp jhd; tHf;fwp"uhf gapw;rp bra;atpy;iybad;Wk;. jhd; rl;lk; kl;Lk; goj;jth; vd;Wk; Twpdhh;/ jhd; nfhh;l;oy; practice bra;ahjjhy; jdf;F rl;l tptu';fs; mjhtJ nfhh;l; eltof;if Kiwfs; bjhpahJ vd;Wk;. jhd; Manager - HRD&IRahf gy;ntW epWtd';fspy; xd;gJ Mz;Lfshf gzpg[hpe;jjhft[k;. ,e;j epWtdj;jpy; fle;j Ie;J Mz;Lfshf gzpg[hptjhft[k; Twpdhh;/ ,Ujug;g[ thj';fSk; tprhuiz mjpfhhpahy; ghprPypf;fg;gl;lJ/ eph;thfj;jpd; gpujpepjp nfhh;l; eltof;if Kiwfs; jdf;F bjhpahJ vd;gjhy; mth; xU tHf;fwp"h; vd bfhs;s ,lkpy;iy vdpDk; mth; rl;lk; goj;Js;shh;/ ,Ujug;gpdUf;Fk; rk tha;g;g[ mspf;f ntz;oaJ tprhuiz mjpfhhpapd; flik vd;gJk; tprhuiz mjpfhhpahy; fUj;jpy; bfhs;sg;gl;lJ/ vdnt Fw;w rhl;L CHpah;fs; jug;gpy; xU tHf;fwp"h; M$uhdhy; mJ eph;thfj;jpid ghjpf;Fk;. mnj neuj;jpy; rl;lk; gapd;w eph;thfk; gpujpepjp nfhh;l eilKiwfs; bjhpahtpl;lhYk; CH[pah;fis tpl rl;l mwpt[ cs;sth;/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ nkw;fz;l midj;J tptu';fis[ak; fUj;jpy; bfhz;L Fw;w rhl;L CHpah;fs; jug;gpy; xU tHf;fwp"iu mDkjpf;f ,ayhJ vdt[k;. Mdhy; Fw;w rhl;L CHpah;fs; tprhuiz eltof;ifapid bgw;W rhl;rpfspd; FWf;F tprhuiz gw;wp jFe;j Mnyhridia j';fsJ tHf;fwp"hplk; bgw;W tprhuiz elj;j jFe;j fhy mtfhrk; tH';fg;gLk; vd tprhuiz mjpfhhp jd; Kotpid bjhptpj;jhh;/" The above passage makes it very clear that the Enquiry Officer has recorded that the Presenting Officer is a Man of Law. However, it is held that the workmen could not bring a Lawyer under the garb of a Trade Union leader, while the Presenting Officer was not a practicing advocate. 26.The aforesaid action of the Enquiry Officer based on which the dismissal order was passed, was not approved by the first respondent and the first respondent held that the enquiry was not a fair enquiry, since the workmen, who were pitted against a legally trained mind in the domestic enquiry, were not permitted to have the assistance of the office bearer of their Union. In this regard, paras 10 to 12 of the order of the first respondent, which is impugned in the present writ petitions, are extracted hereunder: "10. While the petitioner/management would put forth a plea that in the conduct of the enquiry, principles of natural justice have been followed, that the enquiry finding was not perverse, that there was no element of victimisation, that other procedural requirements such as payment of one month's salary after passing of the order of dismissal were met, that the requirement that an approval petition has got to be filed simultaneously has also been satisfied. The respondents/workmen would contend that the domestic enquiry itself is vitiated on the ground that they were refused assistance of an advocate in the conduct of the domestic enquiry even though the management representative S.Govindarajulu was himself a law graduate, that the trade union leader of the respondents was not permitted to participate in the domestic enquiry, that the Enquiry Officer did not permit Thiru. Dhanapalan a trade union leader-cum- advocate to examine himself as a witness. 11.As to the request of the workmen to avail the assistance of an advocate in the domestic enquiry, reliance is placed on 2005(2)L.L.N.853 (Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Teleprinters Limited, Chennai and M.Rajan Isaac) a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Division Bench judgment of our High Court. It has been strikingly observed in the said judgment that ordinarily the principles of natural justice do not postulate a right to be represented or assisted by a lawyer in the departmental proceedings. But there is an exception and if the delinquent officer or the workman as the case may be is pitted against a legally trained person in the departmental enquiry and the delinquent officer or the workman is not that much familiar with the legal procedures involved in the departmental enquiry, justice would require that the officer or workman who has no legal background is represented through a lawyer. It has further been observed that in the absence of such expertise by the officer, the denial of assistance of a legally trained person would render the disciplinary proceedings vitiated. The principle in the said decision has already been dealt with elaborated and laid down in (1) 1986 1 LLJ 124 - Kerala High Court (Union of India and Karunakaran Nair) (2) 1986 II L.L.J 62 Bombay High Court (Venkatraman Sambamurthy and Union of India and another) (3) 1991 2 LLJ 412-Supreme Court (J.K. Aggarwal and Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd and others) (4) 1993 I LLN 689 (Karnataka High Court (G.V.Aswathanarayana and Central Bank of India and others) (5) 1999 I CTC 450 Madras High Court. A close reading of the postulates evolved by the superior courts would only show that when a workman is pitted against a legally trained person, it is more in the nature of fight between two unequals and law disapproves such a placement of the worker as against the management represented by a legally trained person. A pertinent reference may be made at this juncture to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2008(3) L.L.N.60 (SC). It has been held that there is no vested right to claim assistance of a counsel or any other person and when the rules permit only restricted or controlled assistance, no principle of justice is isolated. May be that denial of right to claim assistance of a counsel may not be violative of the principles of natural justice, but in the event of the workman being confronted by the management with a legally trained person, per force, the workman has got to be extended the facility of a lawyer or legally trained person so that ends of justice are better served. In the case at hand the grievance of the respondents is that the assistance of a lawyer has been denied to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ them, when the