Keshav H. Gholve and Anr. v. M/S Thermax Ltd.
Background
The appellants, workmen facing a domestic disciplinary enquiry, were aggrieved that they were not permitted to be represented by a lawyer in that enquiry. Their counsel was further concerned that the employer's standing orders would restrict them to being represented only by an employee from their own department, rather than any employee of their choosing. The respondent-company's counsel pointed out that the High Court's order had already clarified the appellants could choose any employee of the company or a trade-union representative.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal position that a delinquent workman cannot engage a lawyer in a domestic enquiry unless the management itself has engaged one. To resolve the appellants' narrower apprehension about being restricted to a departmental employee, the Court clarified that, regardless of any contrary restriction in the standing orders, the appellants are permitted to be represented by an employee of their choice from the respondent-company, or by a representative of a trade union operating within that management. With this clarification on record, the appeals were disposed of.
Lesson Learnt
In a workplace disciplinary (domestic) enquiry, an employee generally cannot insist on being represented by an outside lawyer unless the employer itself uses one, but the employee can choose their own representative (a co-worker or union representative) from within the organization, regardless of restrictive standing orders.