M/S.Ravindra Steels vs Its Workmen, Represented By ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 1917 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                       Writ Petition (Civil) No.4608/1995

%
                          Date of Decision: 01.04.2011

M/s.Ravindra Steels                            .... APPELLANT
               Through: Mr.Smita Maan, Advocate

                                    Versus

Its Workmen, represented by                         .... RESPONDENTS
Engineering Workers Lal Jhanda
Union
               Through: None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA


1.    Whether reporters of Local papers be                   NO
      allowed to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?                 NO

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


M.L. MEHTA, J. (ORAL)

*

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Ravindra

Steels, against the ex parte award dated 29th July, 1995 of the

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi. The said award was

passed ex parte against the petitioner in the petition filed by the

workmen, Ram Sapath, Ram Bali and Mithai Lal. Vide the

impugned award, the claim petition of the aforesaid workmen

was allowed by the Presiding Officer entitling the workmen to

reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages at

the rate of their last drawn wages. In the present petition, it has

been alleged by the petitioner herein, (the respondent before the

Labour Court) that their counsel failed to appear before the

Labour Court and to produce some documents. It is averred that

all the aforesaid three workmen had left their jobs on 22nd April,

1992 after having received their full and final dues in the

presence of office bearer, Shri Ashok Raj Sharma, General

Secretary, Delhi State Karamchari Union. The counsel appearing

for the petitioner sought permission to produce the original

records in this regard before this Court. The same being not

permissible in the present proceedings, the same was perused

and returned.

2. In the present proceedings, the workmen were proceeded ex

parte, for having not chosen to appear despite service. The

contention of the petitioner seems to be well-founded that if the

workmen left their jobs after having settled their entire claims

finally, they were not entitled to get the relief as awarded in the

impugned award. Be that as it may, the fact is that such an

award has been passed against the petitioner ex parte. No one

may be made to suffer seriously because of the mistake of his

counsel. That is contended to have happened in this case.

Though the petitioner was also responsible for not being vigilant

to the proceedings pending before the Labour Court and fully

dependent upon his counsel, but in the given circumstances, he

cannot be made to suffer so seriously if the documents sought to

be placed were relevant to decide the core issues involved in

that case. Though it is very old case, but in the present case, I

have no option except to remand the matter back to the Labour

Court with the liberty being given to the petitioner to avail one

opportunity for production and proving of the documents. That is

what seems to be in the interest of justice. The case being very

old, it is hoped that the learned Presiding Officer will dispose of

the matter within three months.

3. With these observations, the impugned award is set aside and

the writ petition is allowed in the manner as indicated above and

the matter is remanded back to the concerned Labour Court for

disposal of the matter after entertaining the documents as per

law. The amount deposited by the petitioner be released in

favour of the petitioner.

4. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

                                                   M.L.MEHTA
April 01, 2011                                      (JUDGE)
'Dev'