Smt Chanchal Kumari vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 2934 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                        +   W.P.(C.) No. 4324/1998

%                  Date of Decision: 30th July, 2009

# Smt. Chanchal Kumari                           ..... Petitioner
!             Through: Mr. Shishir Mathur, Advocate.

                                 VERSUS

$ Government of NCT of Delhi and Another     .....Respondent

^ Through: Ms. Deepa Tiwari, Adv. for Respondent no.1 and Mr. M.Y. Khan, Adv. for Respondent no.2.

CORAM:

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?NO

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner, Smt. Chanchal Kumari, has filed this writ petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by an ex parte

award dated 09.03.1995 in ID No. 718/94 (old ID No. 89/79 and 1207/83).

Vide impugned award, the Labour Court has held that no industrial

dispute survives which needs adjudication as nobody appeared on behalf

of the petitioner before the Labour Court to prove her claim.

2. The petitioner has raised an industrial dispute with regard to her

termination from the service of the management (respondent no. 2

herein) w.e.f 19.07.1977.

3. As nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner, the reference was

disposed of by the Labour Court vide impugned award stating that no

industrial dispute survives which requires adjudication.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends

that on the date the reference was disposed of by the Labour Court in

default of non-appearance of the petitioner, the petitioner could not

appear before the Labour Court because she had missed a date of

hearing. The petitioner, therefore, wants an opportunity to prove that

her alleged termination by the management of respondent no. 2 was

illegal and unjustified. Since the industrial dispute raised by the

petitioner with regard to her termination has not been adjudicated by the

Court below on merits, the interest of justice requires that adjudication

should take place on merits instead of rejecting the claim of the

petitioner on technical grounds.

5. In view of the above and having regard to the facts of the case and

the submissions made by counsel for the parties, the impugned award

dated 09.03.1995 is hereby set aside. Consequent thereto, the order

dated 05.02.1998 by which the application of the petitioner for recall of

ex parte award dated 09.03.1995 was dismissed is also set aside. The

case is remanded back to the Labour Court/successor court for

adjudication of reference on merits. The parties are directed to appear

before the Court below for necessary directions at 2 PM on 07.08.2009.

6. Needless to say that the Court below shall make an endeavour to

decide the reference as expeditiously as possible preferably within one

year from today keeping in mind that the alleged termination of the

petitioner from the service of respondent no. 2 management dates back

to 1977.

7. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.

JULY 30, 2009                                   S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'ma'