Manoj Bhalla vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Labour Lko. and 6 Others

Heard Sri Anurag S. Kaalesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Saxena, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶12

By means of the instant application the applicant has sought to add a prayer challenging the validity of an order dated 08.09.2025, passed by learned Prescribed Authority Industrial Tribunal-II, Lucknow, copy whereof has already been filed as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. The amendment seeks to cure an inadvertent error and it does not change the nature of the petition.

¶13

Accordingly, the amendment application is allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall incorporate the necessary amendments forthwith.

¶14

Order on memo of petition:

¶15

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 8.09.2025, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Lucknow, whereby an application filed by the petitioner raising objections against the representation of the employer by advocates has been rejected, stating that the employer's application seeking permission to be represented by those persons does not mention that the persons

¶16

WRIC No. 2114 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

are advocates and the petitioner has failed to establish that these representatives are advocates. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for review of order dated 08.09.2025 mentioning the bar council enrollment numbers of the representatives establishing that the persons representing the workmen are advocates and Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act prohibits the representation of parties through advocates. This application has also been rejected by means of an order dated 29.10.2025, the validity whereof has also been challenged.

¶19

5. In the order dated 29.10.2025, merely this much has been stated that the previous order was passed on merits after hearing the parties and therefore, there is no ground to review the order.

¶20

6. Prima facie, it appears that there is a a statutory prohibition against representation of parties through advocates in proceedings before the industrial tribunal, whereas the employer is being represented by advocates.

¶21

The other prayer made in the petition is challenging the validity of an order rejecting an application for transfer of the case, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he does not want to press this relief.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paradip Port Trust, Paradip Vs. Their Workmen: (1977) 2 SCC 339 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that practicing advocates cannot represent a party in a proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal. The aforesaid judgment has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Suresh Maruti Chougule and others : Civil Appeal No.6586 of 2019 [(2021) 15 SCC 769].

¶23

The matter requires detailed consideration.

¶24

Issue notice to the opposite parties no.4 to 7, returnable at an early date.

¶25

Steps for service of notice shall be taken by learned counsel for the petiitoner within one week from today.

¶26

WRIC No. 2114 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

List this case as fresh after service of notice.

¶29

13. Meanwhile, it is provided that the Industrial Tribunal may proceed with hearing of Adjudication Case No.59 of 2021, but no party should be permitted to be represented by advocates and the Industrial Tribunal shall take into consideration the objection raised by the petitioner that the persons representing the private opposite parties employer are enrolled advocates and will not permit any enrolled advocate to represent them.

¶30

March 19, 2026 Ram.

¶31

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manoj Bhalla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Labour Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Bhalla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Labour Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santoshi Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pratima Gupta vs Sri Amit Ghos / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and Another

Rajeev Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Shashan Lko. and 4 Others

Iqbal Khan and Another vs Shri Haratheesh, Addl. G.M. /Unit Head Iti Limited Raibareli U.P. and Another

Pranav Mishra vs Sanjay Chaturvedi, Finance and Account Officer Basic Shiksha Gonda and Another

Amol Kumar Srivastava vs Narendra Bhooshan, Addl. Chief Secy. Energy U.P. Lko. and 7 Others