Delhi High Court
Naresh Kumar vs Kangra Cooperative Bank Ltd. on 19 September, 2014
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 19th September, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 6333/2014
NARESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Ms.Reena Jain, Advocate
with Petitioner in person.
Versus
KANGRA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. ..... Respondent
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CM No.15270/2014 (for exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6333/2014
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks directions to quash the
order dated 11.08.2014 passed in I.E. No.83/13 (Old No.535/2005) by the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XVI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
2. Ms.Reena Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that Smt.Meenakshi Vats claimed to be working as
Senior Assistant with Kangra Cooperative Bank Ltd., Janakpuri, Delhi,
whereas she is a practising Advocate and enrolled with Bar Council of
Delhi.
3. However, the learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated
11.08.2014 has ordered that issues raised in the application filed under
Section 340 Cr.P.C. can be entertained on merits after considering the
material and evidence on record, thus, directed the petitioner to lead
evidence. Accordingly, the application of the petitioner was dismissed
being filed at pre-mature stage.
4. Second issue raised by the petitioner is that the application of the
Management seeking framing of additional preliminary issues has been
allowed by the learned Tribunal vide aforesaid order dated 11.08.2014.
Accordingly, one additional issue was framed as follows:-
"Whether the claim Petition filed by the workman is barred
by limitation or not"?
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition filed by
the petitioner/claimant is not barred by time and framing additional issue
will cause delay in deciding the matter pending before the Tribunal.
6. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was not supported by any
documentary proof or evidence on record, therefore, I am of the
considered view that the learned Tribunal has rightly directed the
petitioner to lead evidence.
7. As far as the issue of framing of additional issue is concerned, as
stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim filed by the
petitioner is not barred by time, in that eventuality, no harm is going to
cause to the petitioner.
8. In view of above, I do not find any force in the submissions made
by learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the order
dated 10.07.2014, whereby this Court directed the learned Tribunal to
decide the matter within three months. However, till date the same has
not been decided.
10. Keeping in view the directions dated 10.07.2014, this Court
expects from the learned Tribunal to decide the matter expeditiously,
preferably by December 2014.
11. The instant petition is dismissed.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
September 19, 2014
sb
