Delhi High Court
Delhi International Airport Ltd ... vs Rajesh Oberoi on 4 December, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: December 04, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 13055/2018
DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT
LIMITED) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr.
Shadman Siddiqui and Mr. Vivek
Kaushal, Advocates
versus
RAJESH OBEROI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.K. Viswanath, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
CAV 1120/2018
Mr. K. Viswanath, Advocate appears on behalf of caveator. Caveat
stands discharged.
C.M.50688/2018 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 13055/2018 & CM 50687/2018
1. Mr. K. Viswanath, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
respondent.
2. Since the issue involved in this petition is short one, therefore, with
the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for
final hearing today itself.
3. To assail the impugned order, learned senior counsel for petitioner
places reliance upon Supreme Court's decision in Lord Krishna Textile
Mills v. Workmen, AIR 1961 SC 860 to submit that no prior permission
was required for proceeding under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that the
impugned order does not disclose any basis on which interim relief has
been granted to respondent. It is also submitted by learned senior counsel
for petitioner that petitioner has to get examined the Inquiry Officer in
evidence and no other witness.
4. On behalf of respondent, it is submitted that the Inquiry conducted
by petitioner is vitiated as the documents relied upon by petitioner have
not been supplied to respondent. Another plea put forth is that respondent
was not allowed to be assisted by a Defence Assistant. Respondent's
counsel further submits that except respondent, no other witness has to be
got examined. It is also submitted that the matter is now coming up
before the Tribunal on 7th December, 2018 for tendering of petitioner's
evidence.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, material on record
and the decision cited, I find that the Tribunal has noticed the factual and
legal position, but has not provided any reasoning to grant 50% of last
drawn wages as interim relief to respondent. Whether applicable
provision is Section 33(1) or Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, is the subject matter of the main case and is not required to be gone
into, while considering the validity of the interim order.
6. Instead of remanding the matter back to the concerned Tribunal to
decide the application for interim relief afresh, it is deemed appropriate to
put the interim relief on hold while directing the Tribunal to expeditiously
conclude the proceedings under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 within a period of twelve weeks from the date already fixed by the
Tribunal. Such a course is being adopted because petitioner has to tender
its evidence on 7th December, 2018 and respondent-Workman has to step
into the witness box thereafter to depose. During the course of hearing,
this Court was apprised that no other evidence is to be led by the parties
except evidence of Inquiry Officer. In these peculiar circumstances,
petitioner is permitted to deposit 50% of the last drawn wages with the
Tribunal within four weeks, as one time measure. Upon such deposit
being made, it be converted into FDR and retained by the Tribunal and its
release would be subject to outcome of the main case, which the Tribunal
has to positively conclude within the aforesaid timeline. To facilitate it,
cross-examination of respondent be completed within this month, by
granting about half hour or so to petitioner for cross-examining the
respondent. Petitioner's cross-examination be also conducted in a similar
fashion.
7. While modifying the impugned order to the aforesaid extent, this
petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.
DASTI.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 04, 2018
s
