Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DAILYLAW 2462 (DEL)

RAMASU HYDRAULICS v. RAJ KISHORE MISHRA

2007-09-26

Hima Kohli

body2007
HIMA KOHLI, J. ( 1 ) RULE. ( 2 ) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter is heard and disposed of finally. ( 3 ) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner/ management assailing the ex-parte award dated 1. 8. 2003, passed by the Labour court, as also the order dated 13. 8. 2004, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/ management seeking setting aside of the ex-parte order dated 1. 8. 2003. ( 4 ) THE brief facts of the case are that by way of a reference dated 21. 5. 1996 made by the appropriate Government to the effect as to whether the services of the respondent/ workman had been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the petitioner/ management, the industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court. The respondent/ workman was directed to file a statement of claim on 19. 7. 1997, which was filed by him on 29. 1. 1999. In response to the same, the petitioner/ management filed its written statement on 8. 1. 1999, stating inter alia that the services of the respondent/workman were never terminated and that when he was asked to work properly on 10. 1. 1995, he left the premises and threatened the Director of the company. Pleadings were completed and issues were framed on 25. 4. 2001. Thereafter, the case was put up for examination-in-chief of the witness of the respondent/ workman on 11. 1. 2002. As a proxy counsel appeared for the authorized representative of the management on the said date, the cross examination of the said witness was deferred to 7. 5. 2002. A perusal of the order sheet of the proceedings before the Labour Court, photocopies of which have been filed on record, shows that none appeared for the petitioner/ management after 7. 5. 2002, resulting in passing of the impugned ex-parte award. ( 5 ) PURSUANT to the passing of the ex-parte award, the respondent served a legal notice dated 11. 5. 2004, on the petitioner/ management calling upon it to reinstate the respondent/ workman with back wages in terms of the award. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that immediately on receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner/ management filed an application dated 13. 8. 2004, before the Labour Court praying inter alia for setting aside the ex-parte award. 2004, on the petitioner/ management calling upon it to reinstate the respondent/ workman with back wages in terms of the award. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that immediately on receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner/ management filed an application dated 13. 8. 2004, before the Labour Court praying inter alia for setting aside the ex-parte award. The said application was however rejected by the Labour Court vide order dated 13. 8. 2004, by observing that sufficient cause was not shown by the petitioner/management for its non-appearance. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner/ management submits that non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner/management was bona fide inasmuch as the authorized representative of the petitioner/management stopped appearing in the matter without intimating the petitioner/management and that it could not be made to suffer on account of the aforesaid negligent conduct on the part of its authorized representative. It is further stated that irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the petitioner/management in case the impugned award as also the impugned order were not set aside. Counsel for the petitioner/ management also submits that the petitioner/management has reduced its business drastically as also its labour. It is further stated by the counsel for the petitioner/management that in case one opportunity is granted to the petitioner/management to adduce evidence on its behalf, the petitioner/management shall make sure that it will be present before the Labour court and will not take any further adjournments on the ground of the absence of its authorized representative. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, counsel for the respondent/workman disputes the statement that the petitioner/management had reduced its business. It is asserted that the petitioner/management was not diligent in prosecuting its case and cannot seek to blame its authorised representative. ( 8 ) IT cannot be denied that principles of natural justice demand that the petitioner/management be granted an opportunity to prove its case on merits and refusal to grant such an opportunity shall deprive the petitioner/management of its valuable right of being heard. However, it has also to be taken into account that the industrial dispute is of the year 1996 and that the petitioner/management did not take any steps to verify the status of its pending case right from May, 2002 till May, 2004, when it was served with a legal notice by the counsel for the respondent/workman. However, it has also to be taken into account that the industrial dispute is of the year 1996 and that the petitioner/management did not take any steps to verify the status of its pending case right from May, 2002 till May, 2004, when it was served with a legal notice by the counsel for the respondent/workman. It is incumbent upon any client to follow up his case with his advocate vigilantly and deligently rather than completely abdicate his role by sitting back and taking no interest in its progress. ( 9 ) IN this view of the matter, the scales have to be balanced and this court deems it appropriate to set aside the ex-parte award dated 1. 8. 2003, and the order dated 13. 8. 2004, subject to payment of Rs. 15,000/- as costs to the respondent/ workman within four weeks. With these directions, the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 30. 10. 2007, on which date the Labour Court shall fix a date for the petitioner/ management to produce its evidence for which only one opportunity shall be given to the petitioner/management. It is made clear that no further dates will be sought by the petitioner/management or granted by the labour Court thereafter. ( 10 ) IN view of the fact that the industrial dispute relates to the year 1996, the Labour Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months. ( 11 ) WITH these directions, the writ petition and pending application are disposed of.