Delhi High Court
Darbara Singh vs Dtc on 23 February, 2007
Author: R Sharma
Bench: R Sharma
JUDGMENT
Rekha Sharma, J.
1. At the instance of the petitioner 'Darbara Singh' a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal-I, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi to determine whether the punishment of stoppage of next due one increment with cumulative effect imposed on said Darbara Singh was illegal and/or unjustified and if so, what directions were necessary in this respect.
2. It so happened that there was no representation from the side of Darbara Singh before the Industrial Tribunal from the stage when the case was fixed for rejoinder and thereafter. Therefore, the Tribunal vide its order dated July 10, 1996 held that no relief could be granted to him and accordingly answered the reference. After coming to know of the order dated July 10, 1996, Darbara Singh moved the Industrial Tribunal for setting aside of the ex parte award dated July 10, 1996. The said application was dismissed by the Tribunal on April 28, 1997 holding that it had become functus officio. It is this order of the Tribunal which has brought Darbara Singh to this Court in the present writ petition.
3. According to the learned Counsel for Darbara Singh, he had entrusted the case to Delhi Parivahan Sangh Union and having done so, he felt assured that his case was being attended to by the Union. It was only later that he came to know that the Secretary of the Union who was supposed to be conducting the case on his behalf did not appear before the Tribunal nor filed a rejoinder. For these reasons, he is seeking to get the reference re-opened.
4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent-DTC that non-appearance of a representative of the Union is no ground to set aside the impugned order dated April 28, 1997. Both counsel appearing for Darbara Singh and for the respondent have cited judgments in support of their respective stand.
5. Should Darbara Singh be penalised for non-appearance of the representative of the Union who was supposed to appear for him? I feel 'No'. He cannot be faulted. The interest of justice demands that the ex parte proceedings should be set aside. Accordingly I do so. The case is remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal-I, Tis Hazari Court, for trial on merits.
6. The Industrial Tribunal while deciding the case, shall grant opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in the matter and shall decide the case as expeditiously as possible, in any case not later than six months.
7. For what has been noticed above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
8. The parties are directed to appear before Industrial Tribunal on April 2, 2007.
