In a notable verdict impacting industrial dispute litigation, the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi has ruled that Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited can be represented by its advocate before the Labour Court, Jamshedpur. The bench of Justice Deepak Roshan, on November 4, 2025, set aside a February 27 order that had barred the company’s legal counsel from appearing in an ongoing industrial dispute case.
“The restriction on advocates is not absolute,” the Court observed, clarifying that the embargo applies only to conciliation proceedings and not to Labour Court hearings under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Background
The case arose after a Jamshedpur workman, Jay Prakash Singh, challenged his removal from service under the Industrial Disputes Act. His case registered as I.D. Case No. 4 of 2024 became contentious when he filed a preliminary objection to prevent Alembic Pharma’s counsel from representing the company before the Labour Court.
On November 12, 2024, Alembic’s advocate appeared before the Labour Court and sought an adjournment, which was granted. The company argued that the very act of the Labour Court allowing the adjournment indicated implied consent and leave for legal representation.
The workman, however, maintained that he never gave consent and even contested the order sheet that recorded his appearance through counsel earlier.
Court's Observations
Justice Deepak Roshan’s 14-page order delved into the finer points of Section 36(3) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court emphasized that while Section 36(3) bars advocates from appearing in conciliation proceedings, Section 36(4) allows such representation before Labour Courts provided there is consent from the other party and leave from the Court.
“The law is well settled that consent can be express or implied,” Justice Roshan said. “Leave can also be inferred when the Labour Court permits an advocate to appear and allows any application filed by an advocate.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Paradip Port Trust vs. Their Workmen (1977), the judge reiterated that both consent and leave are mandatory. Yet, he noted, such consent may be deemed to have been granted when a party, with full knowledge, does not object to the opposite side’s legal representation.
The Court observed that on October 4, 2024, the workman himself appeared through counsel, which, according to the judge, amounted to waiving his earlier objection.
“Once the workman has appeared through an advocate on one of the dates fixed in the case, he cannot prevent the other side from being represented by an Advocate,” the order noted.
Legal Precedents and Reasoning
Justice Roshan drew upon several High Court rulings to underline that industrial adjudication cannot be strangled by rigid procedural objections. Referring to Key’s Brake Hoses vs. State of Bihar, the judgment quoted:
“Where the party is aware that the other party is being represented by an advocate but does not object, he impliedly consents to such appearance.”
The Court also referenced T.K. Varghese vs. Nichimen Corporation (2001), where the Bombay High Court had observed that consent cannot be withheld “without any justification or for mala fide reasons.”
Adding a note of realism, Justice Roshan remarked that the legal environment had evolved since the early industrial law days. “It would be unjust to deny legal assistance in modern industrial disputes that involve complex issues,” he wrote, highlighting that trained legal representation aids both fairness and judicial efficiency.
Decision
After examining the order sheets, affidavits, and prior rulings, the High Court concluded that the Labour Court’s February 27 order “suffers from both factual and legal infirmities.”
Justice Roshan held that Alembic Pharmaceuticals was entitled to legal representation, and that the workman’s earlier participation through counsel amounted to implied consent. The Labour Court, by allowing the adjournment application filed by Alembic’s advocate, had also effectively granted implied leave.
“In the above facts and circumstances of the case and on close examination of the applicable law, there was no justification in debarring the Advocate representing the Management,” the judge stated. The impugned order was accordingly set aside.
Before closing, the bench directed that the workman be informed of his right to free legal assistance through the District Legal Services Authority, Jamshedpur, ensuring balance and fairness in the upcoming proceedings. The Labour Court was further instructed to decide the dispute “expeditiously and in accordance with law.”
With this, the writ petition filed by Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited was allowed, and all pending interlocutory applications were closed.
Case Title: Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Jay Prakash Singh
Case Type & Number: Writ Petition (Labour) No. 2457 of 2025