Bamara Engineering Works vs Satvinder Singh
2011 Latest Caselaw 2545 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Date of decision: 11th May, 2011

+                           W.P.(C) 8643/2009

         BAMARA ENGINEERING WORKS                  ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. Nishi Jain, Advocate

                                     Versus
    SATVINDER SINGH                    ..... Respondent
                 Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers 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             No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The counsel for the petitioner employer states that the petitioner is

unable to file the fresh address of the respondent workman and seeks

adjournment to move an application for substituted service.

2. Exactly the same request was made on 23rd November, 2010 when

the petition was listed last. It appears that the petitioner employer after

obtaining the ex parte ad interim order of stay of proceedings before the

Industrial Adjudicator does not want to have the present matter proceeded

with.

3. The writ petition impugns the award dated 11 th February, 2009 of

the Industrial Adjudicator dismissing the application of the petitioner for

examining further witness to prove that the respondent workman during

the pendency of dispute before the Industrial Adjudicator is employed

elsewhere. The Industrial Adjudicator dismissed the said application for

the reason that the petitioner employer had in the past also been permitted

to examine the witness in this regard and who had deposed against the

petitioner employer and the petitioner employer could not be permitted to

re-examine the said witness. It was also observed that the petitioner

employer had been repeatedly filing applications delaying the disposal of

the adjudication before the Industrial Adjudicator. It is revealed that the

proceedings were pending before the Industrial Adjudicator since the year

2003.

4. Notice of the writ petition was issued and as aforesaid, the

proceedings before the Industrial Adjudicator stayed and remain stayed.

Though the respondent workman was at one stage reported to have been

served and proceeded against ex parte but subsequently, it was observed

that the report of service was doubtful and as such the respondent

workman was directed to be served again.

5. I have enquired form the counsel for the petitioner employer as to

whether any enquiries were made from the counsel for the respondent

workman before the Industrial Adjudicator as to the whereabouts of the

respondent workman. The counsel has no instructions.

6. However, the fact remains that inspite of the proceedings before the

Industrial Adjudicator having remained stayed for the last two years, the

respondent workman has also not bothered to appear before this Court on

his own.

7. In the circumstances, it is not deemed expedient to keep this writ

petition pending. The petitioner is directed to along with a copy of this

order appear before the concerned Industrial Adjudicator on 27 th May,

2011. The date before the Industrial Adjudicator has been enquired form

the counsel for the petitioner employer. She has no instructions in this

regard also. Subject to the petitioner employer paying costs of `15,000/-

to the respondent workman before the Industrial Adjudicator, the Industrial

Adjudicator shall grant one opportunity to the petitioner employer to

examine the witness sought to be examined and application in which

regard was dismissed. It will however be subject to the condition that the

responsibility for producing the said witness shall be on the petitioner

employer only and the matter will not be adjourned for the said purpose on

any ground whatsoever.

8. Considering the delay already caused to the proceedings, the

Industrial Adjudicator is also requested to dispose of the reference under

Section 10 on or before 30 th November, 2011.

9. Accordingly, the earlier interim order of stay of proceedings is

vacated and the petition is disposed of.

10. The Registry is directed to immediately return the record of the

Industrial Adjudicator.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY 11, 2011 'gsr'