Home  /  Industrial Relations Code, 2020  /  Section 94

Section 94: Cognizance of offences

The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (Act No. 35 of 2020) • Official Statutory Text & Plain English Practice Guide

Statutory Mandate
Chapter XIII: Offences and Penalties
Competent Labour Forum
Act No. 35 of 2020
Section 93 All 104 Sections of Industrial Relations Code, 2020 Section 95

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 94

Section 94 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 regulates the statutory right of representation for workers and employers in conciliation, arbitration, and tribunal proceedings, establishing that representation is through trade union or employer association officers, while imposing strict statutory fetters on the appearance of legal practitioners.

  • Worker Representation Architecture: A worker who is a party to an industrial dispute may be represented by: (a) any member of the executive or other office-bearer of a registered trade union of which he is a member; (b) any member of the executive of a federation of trade unions; or (c) where the worker is not a member of any union, any officer of any registered trade union connected with the industry, or any other worker employed in the establishment authorized in writing.
  • Employer Representation Architecture: An employer who is a party to an industrial dispute may be represented by: (a) an officer of an association of employers of which he is a member; (b) an officer of a federation of associations of employers; or (c) where the employer is not a member of any association, any officer of any association of employers connected with the industry, or any other employer authorized in writing.
  • Statutory Bar and Conditional Appearance of Legal Practitioners: No party shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings. In proceedings before an arbitrator or Industrial Tribunal, a legal practitioner may appear ONLY with the consent of the other parties to the proceeding AND with the leave of the arbitrator or Tribunal.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen (1977) 2 SCC 339: The Supreme Court held that Section 36 of the IDA (now Section 94) is an exhaustive code on representation; an enrolled advocate cannot circumvent the statutory restriction by entering appearance as an officer of an association unless they are a bonafide permanent officer of the association, not engaged merely for the litigation.
  • Prasar Bharati v. Amarjeet Singh (2007) 9 SCC 539: The Supreme Court held that the restriction on legal practitioners is designed to maintain parity of bargaining power and prevent unequals from facing wealthy litigants; consent of the opposite party is a mandatory condition precedent for legal representation.
  • Hygienic Foods v. Jasbir Singh (2011) 4 LLN 225 (Del): The High Court ruled that implied consent can be inferred if the opposite party participates in proceedings for several hearings without objecting to the appearance of the legal practitioner; belated objections cannot be entertained.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

If representing an employer, obtain membership in a recognized employers' association (such as CII, FICCI, or All India Employers' Organization) and designate corporate counsel as an authorized permanent officer of the association. If opposing a party seeking to introduce senior counsel before the Industrial Tribunal, record an express written objection on day one to defeat leave under Section 94(4). Participating in proceedings without objection creates deemed waiver under *Hygienic Foods*.

Section 93 All 104 Sections of Industrial Relations Code, 2020 Section 95