United Coffee House vs Zia Hasan
2009 Latest Caselaw 2554 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) No. 3898/2008 & CM No. 7546/2008

%                       Date of Decision: 09 July, 2009


# United Coffee House
                                                         ..... PETITIONER
!                  Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate

                                 VERSUS

$ Zia Hasan
                                                        .....RESPONDENT

^                  Through: None

CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) This writ petition filed by the management (the petitioner herein) is

directed against an interim order dated 29.09.2007 by which the Court

below has debarred the authorized representative of the management

from appearing and conducting the case on its behalf.

2 None has appeared on behalf of the respondent/workman despite

service of notice of this writ petition. Hence the matter has been heard

ex-parte.

3 The order assailed in this writ petition is at page 36 of the paper

book and the same has been perused by me. The impugned order is a

non-speaking order and does not spell out the reasons or facts of the

case on account of which the authorized representative of the

management has been debarred from appearing and conducting the

case. The law at least expects the Court to give brief reasons for its

conclusion one way or the other. The impugned order is a cryptic order

and it was not expected by the court below to pass the order in the

manner it has been passed simply referring to some precedents. It is not

discussed in the said order as to how those judgments are applicable to

the facts of this case. Under the circumstances, the impugned order

cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. The said order is,

therefore, set aside and the court below is directed to hear the both sides

and pass a fresh order on the application of the workman under Section

36 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in case either of the parties may

be aggrieved by fresh order to be passed by the court below then they

may avail their legal remedy that may be available to them in law.

4 In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of and

application for stay being CM No 7546/2008 is rendered infructuous.

5 A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Labour Court for

information and compliance forthwith.

JULY 09, 2009                                   S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'