Delhi High Court
Punjabi Bagh Club vs Nct Of Delhi, Through Secretary ... on 28 July, 2005
Author: S Kumar
Bench: S Kumar
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. This is an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) read with Section 151 of CPC, wherein the applicant prays for review of the order dated 7th December, 2004 and that the order may be recalled and petitioner be permitted to argue other points before the High Court along with challenging the Labour Court order dated 23rd February, 2005 on application for setting aside the ex-parte order. Another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the applicant submitting that the delay, if any, in filing the application for review may be condoned.
2. In order to deal with this application, reference to the basic facts may be necessary. The petitioner had filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the award of the Labour Court dated 4th June, 2003 and letter issued by the Commissioner dated 4th August, 2004 under Section 33(c)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act be set aside and the respondents be restrained from taking out the prosecution. The grievance of the petitioner-club in the writ petition was that the Labour Court had passed an ex-parte award dated 4th August, 2003. The petitioner had filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte award on 27th May, 2003 which was pending when the writ petition was filed. In the meanwhile, a certificate was issued by the Recovery Officer in exercise of the powers under Section 33(c)(2) and even asked the petitioner as to why he should not be prosecuted under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. This writ petition was disposed of by the judgment of this court dated 7th December, 2004 and direction was given to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma Court, Delhi to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner-management for disposing of the application for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 4th June, 2003 expeditiously. The parties were directed to appear before the Labour Court on 18th January, 2005.
3. In this review application, the petitioner wants to re-agitate the issues on merits of the writ petition which cannot be entertained in view of the order of the court dated 7th December, 2004 passed in open court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length.
4. The present application is beyond the purview and scope of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, once the application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 4th June, 2003 was pending before the Labour Court. In my view the order dated 7th December, 2004 does not suffer from any infirmity or patent error of law or fact. The order dated 23rd February, 2005 is a subsequent cause of action. In any case, copy of said order has not been placed on record. The order was passed on 7th December, 2004 in presence of the counsel of the parties, while the present application has been filed on 26th May, 2005. The application for obtaining a certified copy of the said order itself was filed on 19th May, 2005, much beyond the period of limitation. In the application for condensation of delay, no reason whatsoever has been stated for condoning the delay. In fact, it is a one paragraph application, without any details and reasons for condoning the delay. Resultantly, both these application are without merit, misconceived, not maintainable and as such are dismissed.
5. Consequently, review application no. 180/2005 as well as C.M. No. 8308/2005 are dismissed, while leaving the applicant to bear their own costs. However, the applicant would be at liberty to challenge the order dated 23rd February, 2005 in accordance with law.
