Bombay High Court
GKN Sinter Metals Pvt LtdversusPrashant Wani
- Decided
- Disposal
- Partly Allowed
Holding
The Labour Court's order allowing workmen to be represented by an advocate without employer consent is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
Summary
GKN Sinter Metals Pvt. Ltd., the employer, filed writ petitions challenging a Labour Court order that permitted workmen to be represented by an advocate without the employer's consent. The High Court examined whether consent is a mandatory prerequisite for such representation and whether the Labour Court erred by not considering binding precedents. The Court observed that the Labour Court had not addressed the legal position articulated in various Supreme Court and High Court decisions. Consequently, the Court held that the Labour Court must reassess the applications afresh, taking into account the issue of consent. The impugned orders dated 16 April 2025 were set aside, the applications were remanded to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication, and the writ petitions were allowed in part and disposed.
Issues considered
- Is the employer's consent a necessary condition for workmen to be represented by an advocate in labour proceedings?
- Can the Labour Court grant leave to engage an advocate notwithstanding the absence of employer consent?
- Should the earlier Labour Court order be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration?
Subjects
- labour law
- representation by advocate
- consent
- writ petition
- Labour Court
- remand
- appeal
Judgment
Sonali Mane 41-WP-15981-2025.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15981 OF 2025
GKN Sinter Metals Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner
Versus
Prashant Wani … Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 19369 OF 2025
GKN Sinter Metals Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner
Versus
Shoaib Shoukat Mulani … Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 19398 OF 2025
GKN Sinter Metals Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner
Versus
Tushar Suresh Salunkhe … Respondent
Mr. Dhananjay J. Bhanage for Petitioner.
Mr. Sumit V. Sonare a/w Mr. Harshavardhan K. Jadhav for Respondents.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 22 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C. :
1) The Petition challenge orders dated 16 April 2025 passed by
the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Pune allowing the
applications filed by the Workmen for not permitting the employer to
Digitally
signed by
be represented through Advocate.
MANE
MANE SONALI
SONALI DILIP
DILIP Date:
2026.09.24
10:57:04
+0530
___Page No.1 of 2___
22 September 2026
Sonali Mane 41-WP-15981-2025.docx
2) I have heard Mr. Bhanage, the learned counsel appearing for
Petitioner-Employer and Mr. Sonare, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondents-Employees. Both the learned counsel have placed on
record several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High
Courts in support of their respective contentions. Perusal of the
impugned orders would indicate that none of those decisions were
brought to the notice of the Labour Court, which did not have an
occasion to consider the exact position of law. The Labour Court will
have to decide whether consent is the major factor or whether Court
can ignore the non-grant of consent and decide to grant leave to
engage Advocate taking into consideration the facts of circumstances
of the case. In my view, therefore, Applications need to be adjudicated
afresh by the Labour Court.
3) Accordingly, impugned orders dated 16 April 2025 are set
aside. Applications preferred by the Workmen are remanded to the
Labour Court for being decided afresh. All points raised by the parties
are expressly kept open to be agitated before the Labour Court. The
Writ petitions are accordingly allowed in part and disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.2 of 2___
22 September 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.