Domestic enquiry representation may be restricted by standing orders and statute; outsider representation is not an absolute right.

A domestic enquiry does not give a delinquent workman an absolute right to be represented by an outsider office-bearer of another trade union when the statutory scheme and certified standing orders restrict representation to specified persons. The Court held that the right to be heard is not the same as an unrestricted right to outsider or legal representation, and that natural justice is validly regulated by the governing law in domestic enquiries. Refusal to allow the outsider representative was therefore justified, did not amount to an unfair labour practice, and did not vitiate the dismissal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a delinquent workman has an absolute right to be represented in a domestic enquiry by an outsider office-bearer of another trade union who is neither a member of a recognised union nor an authorised representative under the statutory scheme and standing orders. (ii) Whether refusal to permit such representation violates natural justice so as to amount to an unfair labour practice and vitiate the dismissal.

Issue (i): Whether a delinquent workman has an absolute right to be represented in a domestic enquiry by an outsider office-bearer of another trade union who is neither a member of a recognised union nor an authorised representative under the statutory scheme and standing orders.

Analysis: The statutory framework permitted representation in domestic enquiries only within the limits created by the certified standing orders and Section 22(ii) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Act distinguished between recognised unions and unrecognised unions, and Section 22(ii) confined representation by an unrecognised union to officers, staff-members and members authorised in the prescribed manner by the State Government. The standing orders similarly restricted representation to a clerk or a workman working in the same department. The requested representative was neither within the establishment-based category permitted by the standing orders nor shown to be an authorised representative under the Act.

Conclusion: The workman had no absolute right to be represented by the outsider office-bearer, and the refusal to permit him was legally justified.

Issue (ii): Whether refusal to permit such representation violates natural justice so as to amount to an unfair labour practice and vitiate the dismissal.

Analysis: The right to be heard is not the same as an unrestricted right to representation by counsel or an outsider agent. That right may be regulated by statute, rules or standing orders, especially where the enquiry is domestic in character and the legislature has deliberately confined representation to specified persons. The Court applied the settled principle that natural justice does not confer an absolute entitlement to legal or outsider representation unless the governing law so provides. Since the standing orders and the Act validly restricted representation, refusal to allow the outsider did not breach natural justice. The dismissal therefore could not be treated as an unfair labour practice on that ground.

Conclusion: Refusal to permit the outsider representative did not violate natural justice and did not render the dismissal an unfair labour practice.

Final Conclusion: The impugned High Court order was unsustainable, the dismissal order was restored, and the remand to the Labour Court was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to representation in a domestic enquiry is not an inherent component of natural justice and may be validly limited by standing orders or statute to specified classes of representatives.

---