PRAKASH JOSEPH Vs. MALABAR CEMENTS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant. He is a Law Officer in the service of the first respondent company. A domestic enquiry was ordered by the first respondent company on a memo of charges issued to the appellant. According to the appellant, the presenting officer at the domestic enquiry is a legally trained person and he is therefore, at a considerable disadvantage in the enquiry. Though he had requested for permission to engage a lawyer to appear on his behalf in the enquiry, his request was not considered. It is in the said circumstances, the appellant had approached this court and sought a direction to the company to permit him to engage a lawyer in the domestic enquiry. Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which was brought into force on 15.06.2011, was pressed into service to sustain the said relief.

(2.) The learned single Judge took the view that the purpose of the domestic enquiry being one to ascertain the facts, after affording the employee concerned an opportunity of hearing, it cannot be said that an enquiry officer is a person who is legally authorised to take evidence, to attract Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) We have heard senior counsel Sri. Ranjith Thampan for the appellant and senior counsel Sri. E.K. Nandakumar for the respondents.