Delhi High Court
State Bank Of India vs Sanjay Kumar on 11 October, 2018
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 11th October, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 570/2018 & CM No. 2514/2018
STATE BANK OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Savita Singh, Adv.
versus
SANJAY KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankit Khera, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. This writ petition, at the instance of the State Bank of India,
assails Award dated 14th June, 2017, passed by Sh. Harbansh Kumar
Saxena, the Presiding Officer, CGIT-II, Karkardooma.
2. In view of the order that I propose to pass, it is not necessary to
make any reference to the contents of the said Award, or the ultimate
decision therein.
3. Annexure P-3 and P-2, to the writ petition, are the orders passed
by the said Presiding Officer on 2nd May, 2017 and 9th May, 2017.
They read thus :
Order dated 2nd May, 2017 :
"Present: B.S. Rawat, Ld. A/R for the workman.
Ms. Savita, Ld. A/R for the management.
Ld. A/R for the management filed an application informing
me that she cannot wait up-to 2 P.M. I afforded her option to
further cross-examine the witness. It is 12:20, I gave her
option she is not ready to cross-examine. If she is not ready
to cross-examine within 5 minutes her right of cross-
examination shall be closed and management shall be treated
defaulter as per provision of Rule 10-B Industrial Dispute
(Central) Rules, 1957 and case will proceed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.O.
Subsequently right of further cross examination closed.
Thereafter Ld. A/R for the W/m closed remaining
evidence of the W/m.
Fixed 9/5/17 for M/E if any.
Sd/-
P.O."
Order dated 9th May, 2017 :
"9/5/17
Present- Sh. B.S. Rawat Ld A/R for the workman
It is relevant to mention here that on the last date Ld
A/R for management has not availed her right of cross
examination with WW1. Hence her right of cross examination
was closed. Thereafter A/R for workman closed remaining
evidence of workman.
Procedure provided in Rule 10-B of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules 1957 is adopted in I.D. Cases.
According to Sub-Rule (8) of Rule-10-B of Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 I fixed 9/5/2017 for
Management evidence.
It is further relevant to mention here that Ms. Savita Ld. A/R
for the Management behave like a mischief monger however
I ignored as none on behalf of the management was present.
Instead of filing affidavit an application has been
moved on behalf of management. Copy of which supplied to
the Ld. A/R for management. Who made an endorsement on
application opposing it.
Heard.
Put up for order after lunch.
Sd/-
P.O.
Aft. Lunch
Case is fixed for order relating to disposal of application
moved for setting aside order dated 2.5.2017 through which
right of cross examination which WW1 has been closed.
I have heard the Ld. A/Rs for the parties at length and perused
the contents of application including provisions of sub-rule
(8) and (9) of Rule 10-B, Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,
1957 as well as conduct of Ld. A/R of management in this
Tribunal on last date. Which cast heavy impression on me
through her threatening gestures. She tried to dictate terms
to this Tribunal in getting the case adjourned to any other date
for cross examination of WW1.
It is relevant to mention here that conduct of Ld. A/R for the
management. Through her conduct she appeared as mischief
monger.
I treat her frustrated lady and ignored her threatening
gestures but she crossed limit.
In this background management application for setting aside
order dated 2.5.2017 is not liable to be allowed.
Otherwise it will go message to such lawyers that this court
can be easily overpowered by such activities.
Which is accordingly rejected.
Today management has not filed affidavit of management
witness nor moved adjournment application. Hence this
Tribunal has no option except to close the right of
management application as per provision of sub rule (9) Rules
10-B Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 which is
accordingly closed.
Case will proceed ex-parte against management.
Fixed 30.05.2017 for ex-parte arguments of Ld. A/R for the
workman.
If any such candidate is repeated by Ld. A/R for the
management in this Tribunal in future then I shall report the
matter for cancellation of her enrollment number as an
advocate to the concerned bar council.
Sd/-
P.O."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. Sobriety and temperance are the de minimis that are expected of
an officer exercising judicial functions. Often does the judge
encounter litigants, and lawyers, who are irascible and may sorely test
his fortitude; the judge, needless to say, is required to rise above such
sentiments and apply himself, dispassionately, to the issue at hand.
The italicised words, contained in the orders passed by the court
below, do not, I am constrained to observe, conform to the standard
required of an officer exercising judicial functions. Apart from the
other comments entered by the Presiding Officer, his condemnation,
of the learned counsel, who appeared before him, as a "frustrated
lady" was ex facie objectionable, and amounts to dishonour to the
counsel herself. Besides, the acknowledgement, by the Presiding
Officer that the said learned counsel had "cast heavy impression" on
him "through her threatening gestures" has, in my view, disentitled the
Presiding Officer to continue to deal with this case, as the "heavy
impression" cast on him by the behavior of the counsel clearly has the
propensity of clouding his judgment.
5. Without making any further comments on the remarks entered
by the learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, and in view
of the fact that the learned counsel for the respondent agrees to the
matter being remanded for reconsideration by another officer, this writ
petition is allowed.
6. The orders dated 2nd May, 2017 and 9th May, 2017, as well as
the impugned Award dated 14th June, 2017 are, therefore, quashed and
set aside. The matter is remanded for being considered afresh and ab
initio, from the stage at which the reference had been received, by the
Industrial Tribunal, from the Government.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, after passing of
the impugned Award, there has probably been a transfer of the
competent Industrial Tribunal from Karkardooma to Dwarka. This is
a matter which would be within the province of the learned District
Judge, who, no doubt would take a view thereon.
8. Needless to say, the de novo proceedings would remain
completely uninfluenced by any order passed in the dispute prior
hereto.
9. A copy of this order is directed to be communicated to the
learned District Judge having jurisdiction over the dispute, who is
requested to assign the matter, for de novo consideration, to a judicial
officer other than Sh. Harbansh Kumar Saxena. Needless to say, the
parties would be put on appropriate notice of the listing of the
proceedings, by such officer.
10. The learned District Judge is also requested to advise Mr.
Harbansh Kumar Saxena to exercise greater circumspection and
restraint in the discharge of his judicial functions, especially in the
orders passed by him.
11. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
OCTOBER 11, 2018/kr
