Delhi High Court
M/S. Aggarwal Traders vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Another on 10 March, 2015
Author: V.P.Vaish
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 10th March, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 4677/2013
M/S. AGGARWAL TRADERS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nirmal Mishra, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Prashant Mehta, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Mahesh Ranjan, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner impugns award dated 02.11.2012 passed by learned
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in LIR/D
No.156/2010 whereby learned Labour Court decided all the issues in favour
of respondent No.2/ workman and granted reinstatement with full back
wages and continuity of service and all consequential benefits.
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that respondent No.2/
workman filed statement of claim under Section 10(4A) of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'ID Act') against the
petitioner/ Management on the grounds, inter alia, that he was working with
the petitioner as Machineman w.e.f. 07.08.1988. He was drawing salary of
Rs.5,850/- per month. The petitioner issued a show-cause notice dated
07.02.2010, which was replied by him and thereafter his services were
terminated w.e.f. 22.04.2010 on the basis of false allegations. Respondent
No.2 sent legal demand notice dated 17.05.2010 which was not replied by
the petitioner. The petitioner/ Management filed written statement and
alleged that the respondent No.2 was a habitual absentee. The respondent
No.2 left services of the Management w.e.f. 27.07.2009.
3. In the industrial dispute the learned Labour Court framed issues on
15.03.2011. On 03.10.2012 learned Labour Court proceeded ex-parte
against the petitioner and finally the impugned award dated 02.11.2012 was
passed.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the said award dated 02.11.2012 the petitioner
has filed the said petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the petitioner has already
filed written statement and the issues were framed on 15.03.2011. After
framing of issues, the case was adjourned to 12.05.2011 for evidence of
workman and again it was adjourned to 02.08.2011. The workman did not
adduce any evidence and again case was adjourned for evidence of the
workman. He also submits that on 02.08.2011 learned Labour Court
directed the authorised representative of the workman to file the affidavit of
evidence on the next date of hearing or a no dispute award would be passed
and the case was adjourned to 23.12.2011. Again on 23.12.2011, a proxy of
AR on behalf of workman was present and informed the counsel for
petitioner that the workman did not lead evidence. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also submits that the petitioner was under the impression that no
dispute award would be passed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner
management was appearing in other matters filed by the co-workmen and
the petitioner did not keep track of the present case and, therefore, could not
appear after 23.12.2011 which led to the passing of an ex-parte order. The
Labour Court did not even bother to issue court notice on the application
moved by respondent No.2 on 11.04.2012 for issuing directions to the
management for filing record pertaining to employment of respondent No.2.
7. During the course of arguments, Mr. Mahesh Ranjan appearing for
respondent No.2/ workman submits that he has no objection, if the petition
is allowed and the impugned award dated 02.11.2012 is set aside subject to
payment of cost.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed written statement to the claim
filed by the respondent No.2 and issues were framed on 15.03.2011. The
petitioner did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte on 03.10.2012.
Thereafter, the impugned award was passed on 02.11.2012. The interest of
justice requires that one opportunity should be given to the petitioner to
cross-examine the witnesses of respondent No.2 and to adduce its evidence.
10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the
submissions made by learned counsel for respondent, the petition is allowed
and the impugned award dated 02.11.2012 passed by learned Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi is set aside subject to
payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) as cost to be paid to
respondent No.2. However, it is made clear that only one effective
opportunity will be given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of
respondent No.2. Learned Labour Court is directed to pass a fresh award,
after affording an opportunity to both the parties, expeditiously and
preferably within a period of three months from the date of appearance fixed
by this Court before the Labour Court.
11. Both the parties are directed to appear before the concerned Labour
Court on 23.03.2015 at 10:00 a.m.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
JUDGE
MARCH 10, 2015
hs
