Shri Aita Ram vs Hindustan Times Limited And ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 4109 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C.) No. 12326/2009

%                 Date of Decision: 12th October, 2009


#     SHRI AITA RAM                                       ..... PETITIONER

!                 Through:    Mr. Ashwin Vaish and Mr. Vinod Kumar
                              Pandey, Advocates.

                                    VERSUS

$     HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD & ANOTHER                     ....RESPONDENTS

^ Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal and Mr. Ajit Upadhyaya, Advocates for respondent No. 1.

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)

This writ petition is filed by the workmen against M/s Hindustan

Times Limited in terms of liberty granted to the parties vide order dated

16.01.2009 in W.P.(C.) No. 2247/2007 to move this Court in case any of

them delay the proceedings pending before the Industrial Tribunal.

2. This writ petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage

itself because Mr. Sandeep Mittal is present on behalf of the respondent

No. 1 and counsel on both sides have agreed that the writ petition may

be disposed of at this stage itself to avoid further delay in the disposal of

reference pending before the Industrial Tribunal.

3. There are 272 workmen who were terminated by the respondent

No. 1 from its service. They all were terminated on the same date after

affixing notice on the Notice Board on 03.10.2004. Individual letters of

termination are stated to have also been sent to each of the 272

workmen. Mr. Sandeep Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent No. 1, says that termination of all the 272 workmen was

under Section 25 FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. This Court in deciding the present writ petition is not going into the

legality of the termination of the workmen because the said question is

pending adjudication in reference proceedings pending before the

Industrial Tribunal.

5. The management of respondent No. 1 had earlier filed a writ

petition being W.P.(C.) No. 2247/2007 which was disposed of finally vide

consent order dated 16.01.2009. In that writ petition, both sides had

agreed that they will not cause any delay in the disposal of the reference

pending before the Tribunal and on such an assurance given by them,

directions were given by this Court to the Tribunal vide its order dated

16.01.2009 to make all possible endeavour to dispose of the matter

within a period of six months and in any case, not beyond one year. The

said directions were given on 16.01.2009. Now, 9 months have passed

but their does not seem to be any headway in the disposal of the

reference. The case before the Tribunal is stated to be struck up at the

stage of cross-examination of the first witness of the workmen namely

WW-1 Mr. Suryamani Mishra. The case is stated to be now fixed before

the Tribunal for remaining cross-examination of WW-1 Mr. Suryamani

Mishra on 16.10.2009 , 23.10.2009 and 24.10.2009. The workmen are

stated to have filed 281 affidavits in their evidence in chief. Since

directions were given by this Court to the Tribunal to dispose of the

reference maximum within one year to be reckoned from 16.01.2009, the

Court asked the counsel for the parties that if 281 affidavits have been

filed in evidence in chief, then how the case before the Tribunal can be

completed within time, i.e., by the end of January 2010 in terms of

directions of the Court contained in its order dated 16.01.2009 in W.P.(C.)

No. 2247/2007. The Court also asked the counsel for the parties to give a

schedule of the number of witnesses they actually intend to examine in

support of their rival contentions in proceedings pending before the

Tribunal, if they are really interested in expeditious disposal of the

reference.

6. At this stage, Mr. Ashwin Vaish, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner, on instructions from all the 272 workmen says

that since the claim of all these workmen is identical, he will examine

only one witness who is already under cross-examination namely WW-1

Mr. Suryamani Mishra, which should be treated as evidence on behalf of

all the 272 workmen. It is further submitted by Mr. Vaish that in case, the

workmen succeeds in proving the reference in their favour and if the

question arise for their reinstatement and back wages, then because only

one witness is going to be examined on behalf of the 272 workmen, the

management should not be permitted to plead that these 272 workmen

were gainfully employed unless the particulars of gainful employment are

specifically proved by management before the Tribunal and in that event,

opportunity should be given to the workmen to lead their evidence in

rebuttal on the point of gainful employment.

7. Mr. Sandeep Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent No. 1, says that he will examine only two witnesses on behalf

of the respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal. Their evidence in chief

should be filed by respondent No. 1 by affidavit within two weeks from

today with a further liberty granted to the respondent No. 1 to file

additional affidavit of these two witnesses, if required, within a week's

time of closure of cross-examination of the workmen's witness WW-1 Mr.

Suryamani Mishra. Needless to say that advance copy of

affidavits/additional affidavits of the two witnesses to be filed on behalf of

the management of respondent No. 1 should be furnished to the counsel

for the workmen immediately on their being filed before the Tribunal.

Counsel on both sides have assured the Court that they will not move any

miscellaneous application of any kind before the Tribunal and if need be,

they will approach this Court for any further directions or clarifications in

the matter and this assurance has been given by the counsel on both

sides so that they may not be blamed tomorrow that either of them is

guilty of causing delay in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Any

miscellaneous application of either of the parties pending before the

Tribunal in the reference proceedings shall not be pressed and are

deemed to have been withdrawn by the parties. This direction has been

given to facilitate the expeditious disposal of the reference pending

before the Tribunal.

8. The three dates are now stated to be fixed before the Tribunal and

they are 16.10.2009, 23.10.2009 and 24.10.2009. These dates are fixed

for remaining cross-examination of WW-1 Mr. Suryamani Mishra. The

counsel for the management should conclude the cross-examination of

WW-1 on these three dates spending maximum of one hour on each such

date.

9. At this stage, Mr. Ajit Upadhyaya, present in person along with Mr.

Sandeep Mittal for the Management, says that he should be given six

hours more for concluding the remaining cross-examination of WW-1 Mr.

Suryamani Mishra. Mr. Vaish submits that WW-1 has already been cross-

examined by management for one hour on 19.09.2009. Mr. Upadhyaya

is the counsel for the management before the Tribunal. Mr. Upadhyaya

says that time is taken for recording of cross-examination of the

workmen's witness because of repeated objections taken by the counsel

for the workmen. Mr. Vaish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

workmen submits that since WW-1 Mr. Suryamani Mishra knows only

Hindi and when translation of his deposition is done, the entire sense is

changed and for that reason, he has to object to the recording of such a

version. In order to obviate the apprehension of the counsel for the

parties on this aspect of the matter, the Tribunal is directed to record the

remaining cross-examination of WW-1 under its own direction,

supervision and dictation and the counsel for the petitioner has been

asked not to raise unnecessary objection before the Presiding Officer of

the Industrial Tribunal. Answers to the questions being put in the cross-

examination of WW-1 be recorded so that the entire script of testimony

would be before the Court and objection to any particular portion of the

evidence that may be given in the cross-examination may be taken by

the parties during arguments. This course has been adopted to avoid

technicalities and delay in recording of the cross-examination of the

witness. Mr. Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

management before the Tribunal, has been requested that he should

confine his cross-examination of WW-1 only for an hour on each of the

three dates and should conclude his cross-examination on dates already

fixed before the Tribunal for recording of his remaining cross-

examination.

10. Mr. Vaish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workmen

says that he will take two hours for cross-examination of each of the two

witnesses intended to be examined by respondent No. 1 management.

The Tribunal will fix dates for cross-examination of the management's

witnesses as per its calendar giving priority to the present case keeping

in mind that there are 272 workmen who have challenged their

termination in a reference pending before it. The Tribunal below should

make an endeavour to dispose of the reference as expeditiously as

possible preferably within next nine months time to be reckoned from

16.10.2009.

11. Mr. Vaish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 272

workmen, says that the remaining affidavits filed in evidence in chief of

the workmen should be treated as withdrawn as they all will rely on

evidence of WW-1 Mr. Suryamani Mishra subject to their right of rebuttal

evidence on the point of gainful employment.

This writ petition is disposed of in terms referred above.

A copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal below for compliance.

OCTOBER 12, 2009                                        S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'BSR'