Delhi High Court
Dtc vs The Presiding Officer, ... on 5 December, 2007
Author: H Kohli
Bench: H Kohli
JUDGMENT
Hima Kohli, J.
1. The present writ petition is directed against an order dated 18.9.1996, passed by the Industrial Tribunal in OP No. 219/1994 whereby the approval application of the petitioner management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was dismissed due to non-payment of costs.
2. The brief facts relevant for deciding the present writ petition are that the respondent workman was serving the petitioner management as a Conductor and was issued a charge sheet on 18.1.1993, on the charges of causing monetary loss to the petitioner management. Issuance of the charge sheet was followed by holding of a domestic enquiry. After the enquiry report was considered by the Disciplinary Authority, punishment of removal from service was imposed on the respondent workman, vide order dated 12.8.1994. Contemporaneously, the petitioner management filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act before the Industrial Tribunal seeking approval of its action of termination of the services of the respondent workman. Reply to the said approval application was filed by the respondent workman on 4.3.1995 and thereafter, the case was adjourned to 27.7.1995. On 27.7.1995, the case was adjourned to 20.11.1995 for filing of rejoinder, documents and for framing of issues. On 20.11.1995, an issue with regard to the validity of the domestic enquiry was framed and the case was adjourned to 4.3.1996, for the evidence of the petitioner management.
3. On 4.3.1996, as neither the rejoinder nor the affidavit was filed by the petitioner management, further time was granted to it and the case was adjourned to 10.7.1996. On 10.7.1996, further time was again sought on behalf of the petitioner management for filing an affidavit which was opposed by the other side. However, in the interest of justice, an adjournment was granted to the petitioner management for filing an affidavit subject to payment of Rs. 250/- as costs. The case was adjourned for 18.9.1996. On 18.9.1996 also, neither the affidavit was filed, nor the costs were paid by the petitioner management, as a result of which, the approval application filed by it was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner management.
4. Counsel for the petitioner management states that dismissal of the approval application of the petitioner management by the Industrial Tribunal was unjustified and there was no good reason for rejecting the said approval application, merely for non-payment of costs. In support of his contention, he seeks to place reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 7.2.2002, passed in LPA No. 480/2000 entitled DTC v. Hari Narain Giri and Anr. wherein on identical facts, the Court observed as below:
...The Learned Tribunal therefore, in our opinion acted without jurisdiction in dismissing the application for approval on the ground that costs had not been paid. The Apex Court in Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Ram Kunwar Industrial Tribunal AIR 1957 SC 276 held that in terms of Section 7 of Section 11 of the Act, the "Cost of any proceedings" would mean costs of the entire proceeding as determined on its conclusion and not costs in a pending proceeding, or nor costs to be incurred in future by a party.
xxxxx
Having regard to the fact the operation of the order passed in CW 4702/ 97 in terms whereof a direction was issued upon the appellant herein to reinstate the workman has been stayed, we are of the opinion that the appellant herein should be given a chance to contest the application before the Industrial Tribunal subject to any decision that may be taken by this Court in R.A. No. 11276/ 2001 wherein a review petition has been filed in C.W. No. 4702/ 1997. However, having regard to the conduct of the appellant, we direct that this order shall be subject to payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of costs to the 1st Respondent....
5. Following the aforementioned judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, the writ petition is allowed. The case is remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal, who shall consider the same on merits, subject to the petitioner management paying a sum of Rs. 250/- imposed as costs vide order dated 18.9.1996 and in addition thereto, a sum of Rs. 7500/- shall be paid as costs to the respondent workman. The aforesaid costs shall be paid to the respondent workman upon his entering appearance before the Industrial Tribunal.
6. As counsel for the respondent workman is not present in Court, in the interest of justice, the Industrial Adjudicator shall issue notice to the respondent workman. In view of the fact that the approval application relates to the year 1994, the Industrial Tribunal shall endeavor to dispose of the matter on merits as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of the respondent workman entering appearance before it.
7. The parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal on 19.12.2007.
8. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Industrial Tribunal for information.
