Brief Relevant Facts of the Case

The company submitted draft standing orders (DSO) and modifications were made by the Certifying
Officer. The relevant modification was related to the representation of the delinquent employees
during disciplinary proceedings. As per the Model Standing Orders applicable on the company
(MSO), the delinquent employee could be represented by any other employee of the company or any
office bearer of the trade union. However, the draft standing orders only allowed an employee of the
company to represent the delinquent employee. the Certifying Officer certified the DSO with the
amendment which allowed the office bearers of the trade union to represent the delinquent employees
in departmental hearings. This order was appealed in the appellate authority, then the HC and finally
reached the Supreme Court.

Held
The SC upheld the order of the appellate authority who certified the draft standing orders as submitted
by the company. The court was of the opinion that representation in a departmental hearing is not a
right of the delinquent employee and it was the discretion of the company to allow such representation
and the company shall clarify the same in the rules.

Analysis
The SC does have a sound legal reasoning for their holding. The basic question which needs to be
answered in the present case is what is “fair” as part of “fair hearing” which is a right under the
principles of natural justice. As per the MSO, fairness is achieved by allowing the delinquent
employee to choose a representative from within the company or the office bearers of the trade union.
However, the precedents1 suggest that there is no right of representation in departmental hearings and
it is upon the employer to make such a provision for the employees if they see it fit and the employer
can regulate the amount of choice available 2. Therefore, the SC is legally correct in holding that not
giving the right to choose the office bearers as representatives is also fair under the principles of
natural justice.
In the case of D. K. Yadav3, the court held that a domestic enquiry is directly connected to the right of
livelihood as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution which makes the right to provide a
reasonable opportunity to present one’s case during a domestic enquiry before putting an end to one’s
tenure is essential. Keeping in mind the importance of such a right of reasonable opportunity it is
pertinent to note that the court fails to consider the following points-

 Section 3(2) states that the draft standing orders should be in “conformity” with the model
standing orders however, the court has not discussed the degree to which the draft standing
orders can differ from the model standing orders. Since the pool of people available for the
delinquent to choose a representative from is of great importance as there are a lot of social
factors which are at play here (explained in subsequent points), it is a policy decision which
the appropriate government makes and digression on such a point may be considered
material.
 There are several issues with allowing only the employees of the company to be
representatives of the delinquent employees. There are- (i) the proceedings take time and the

1
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank v. Ramesh Chandra Meena [2022 3 SCC 44]; Kalindi and Ors. v. Tata
Locomotive & Engineering Company Ltd., [AIR 1960 SC 914];
2
Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v Ram Naresh Tripathi [(1993) 2 SCC 115]
3
D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries [(1993) 3 SCC 259]
 employees (who might be paid on the basis of working hours) might not be willing to help the
delinquent as it would cost them their working hours. (ii) the employees might not want to
help as they might fear that helping the delinquent might create a bias against them which
would be a problem for them as they are still working for the same employer. (iii) the
delinquent employees themselves and the people at the same level as them might not be
educated enough and thus they would not be well equipped to represent in the disciplinary
hearing, while, on the other hand, the office bearers might have already dealt with multiple
cases and be well-versed with the provisions and issues.
 The education and the knowledge of the applicable provisions plays a vital role in the
disciplinary hearing because the hearing involves cross-examination of witnesses and
documents however, if the representative is unable to understand the document itself which is
presented as evidence, they would not be able to cross-examine; and cross-examination and
rebuttal of evidence is a vital part of a fair enquiry 4.

Conclusion
Even though the principles of natural justice are not violated, there are other considerations which the
court overlooks which are pertinent to look at given the social status of the people involved and the
effect it would have on their livelihood. Also, the remedy being asked for by the employees would not
have any adverse effect on the employer as it would only result in a fair hearing which is a right of the
employees.

4
Meenglas Tea Estate v. The Workmen [AIR 1963 SC 1719]