Delhi High Court
The Joint Manager (Fci) vs The Presiding Officer C.G.I.T. on 15 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003 VIAD Delhi 27, 109 (2004) DLT 596
Author: M Mudgal
Bench: M Mudgal
JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended and rightly so that there is an error in the order dated 15th May 2003 of this Court that in so far as it orders the arrears of payment of wages last drawn or minimum wages whichever is higher. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the court to the statement made by the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 in paragraph 2 of the order that respondents confines their case to the wages last drawn. Learned counsel for the respondents very fairly did not dispute this plea. Accordingly the order dated 15th May 2003 is modified to the extent that the arrears be paid to respondent No. 4 on the basis of wages last drawn from the date of the Award i. e. 28th February 2001 up to date on or before 31st July 2003.
2. The impugned order in the writ petition refuses the claim to set aside ex parte award dated 11th July 2002. The case of the petitioner is that Shri K. A. Dewan, Advocate was engaged and in so far as the proceedings of 1st August 1997 are concerned, Shri Dewan communicated in the following terms:
" The workman did not appear despite waiting for two hours. Case has accordingly been dismissed by the court for non prosecution. "
3. The petitioner management's case is that due to the aforesaid letter the petitioner naturally kept no track of the case and was accordingly shocked to receive a copy of the ex parte award. Reliance has been placed by the Tribunal on the fact that a copy of the rejoinder was received by the clerk of the advocate i. e. Shri K. A. Dewan on 6th June 1997. The plea of the petitioner is bona fide and deserves to succeed. Indeed the learned counsel for respondents 3 & 4 did not seriously oppose this plea. I am of the view that the order dated 11th July 2002 refusing to set aside the ex parte award dated 28th February 2001 is not sustainable because since gross negligence of the counsel Shri K. A. Dewan has been cited as a reason, the receipt of the rejoinder by his clerk cannot be a ground for refusal to set aside the ex parte award. Since the respondent workman has been dragged to the Court for no fault of his he deserves to be suitably compensated.
4. In my view apart from the amount which has become available to the respondent a No. 4, it is also directed that the respondent be paid costs quantified at Rs. 15,000/-. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter after remand not later than 31st January 2004. In case the petition is not disposed of and the delay is not attributable to the respondent No. 4 then from 1st February 2004, the respondent 4 will continue to receive the last wages drawn until the disposal of the dispute by the Tribunal pursuant to the remand of the case by this Court. Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 11th July, 2002 and the impugned award dated 28th February, 2001 are set aside.
5. Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of.
