The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue at length and held that ordinarily it is considered desirable not to restrict the delinquent's right to be represented by counsel or an agent of his choice but it is different thing to say that such a right is an element of the principles of natural justice and denial thereof would invalidate the inquiry. The right to be represented by counsel or agent can be restricted, controlled or regulated by statutes, rules regulations or standing orders. A delinquent has no right to be represented through counsel or agent unless the law specifically confers such a right upon him. The requirement of rules of industrial dispute in so far as the right of hearing of the delinquent is concerned, cannot and does not extend to a delinquent to be represented through counsel or agent. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that refusal to grant the help of a lawyer is to be examined on the touchstone of the doctrine of prejudice and it cannot be claimed in contravention to the statutory rules. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that in a domestic inquiry, reasonable opportunity should be given to the delinquent employee to meet the charge framed against him, and it is desirable that in such an inquiry employee should be given liberty to be represented by a person of his choice if there is standing order against such a course being adopted and if there is nothing otherwise objectionable in the request made by him. But, in a case where the standing order of the employer company provides that in domestic inquiry, only a representative of a union which is registered under the Trade Unions Act and is recognized by the Company Act, there can be no denial of natural justice if the request of the workman, who insisted to be assisted by a representative of his own unrecognized union with the object of indirectly obtaining recognition to their union, is rejected. A similar issue was considered and it was held that right to be represented by an advocate in the departmental proceeding can be restricted and regulated by the statute or by the service rules including the standing orders applicable to the employee concerned. A similar view has been reiterated in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, (1999) 1 SCC 626. In view of the aforesaid settled legal propositions, it is not necessary that in every case the assistance of defence nominee is necessarily permitted. It depends case upon the facts of an individual case. However, such facility is required to be given where on assessing situational facts the Authority comes to the conclusion that the delinquent was likely to be in a comparatively disadvantageous position if such facility is not provided for and it would prejudice his cause. More so, such an assistance cannot be claimed as a matter of right, nor in contravention of the statutory provisions or standing orders applicable to the employee is there. Submit