Delhi High Court
Naresh Kumar vs Presiding Officer Labour Court on 8 January, 2020
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:- 08.01.2020
+ W.P.(C) 5180/2016, CM Nos.12772/2017, 18849/2017, 18851/2017,
24453/2017, 36008/2017, 42762/2017, 2107/2018, 8242/2018,
12492/2018, 8609/2019 and 12984/2019
NARESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: In person.
versus
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT &ANR..... Respondent
Through: Mr. K.Ananthraman, Adv. for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition filed by the workman assails the order
dated 05.05.2016 passed by the Labour Court- XVI, Karkardooma
Courts in ID No. 83/13 rejecting his application seeking recall of the
'No Dispute Award' passed on 29.01.2015.
2. The petitioner, joined at the post of clerk-cum-cashier at the
respondent no.2 Bank in its Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi
Branch, on 21.04.1990. Aggrieved by his dismissal from service by the
Bank on 29.05.2000, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before
W.P.(C) 5180/2016 Page 1 of 6
the Labour Court which came to be dismissed vide the No Dispute
Award dated 29.01.2015. The learned Labour Court took into account
that the petitioner had not appeared before it w.e.f. 24.07.2007 till
23.07.2011 and from 16.04.2014 till 21.01.2015, had failed to produce
any evidence in support of his claim, before concluding that the
petitioner claimant was not interested in pursuing his dispute against
the management. It is the petitioner's claim that he only came to know
of the No Dispute Award belatedly, i.e. on 20.07.2015, whereafter he
moved an application seeking to set aside the No Dispute Award.
However, the petitioner's recall application also came to be dismissed
by the Labour Court on 05.05.2016, which order of dismissal has been
impugned in the present petition.
3. During the course of arguments, the petitioner, who appears in
person, submits that he is primarily aggrieved by the 'No Dispute
Award' passed by the Labour Court on the presumption that the
petitioner had wilfully not been appearing before the Court and was,
therefore, not interested in pursuing his dispute against the
Management. The petitioner concedes his absence before the Labour
Court on some dates, but contends that the respondent as also the
Labour Court were duly informed that he was, during this period,
pursuing his remedies before this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court against some interim orders passed by the Labour Court. In
furtherance of this submission, he avers that he had preferred WP(C)
No. 8740/2011 before this Court in 2011, which petition came to be
allowed vide order dated 10.07.2014, whereafter he was compelled to
prefer another writ petition being WP(C) No. 6333/2014, which finally
W.P.(C) 5180/2016 Page 2 of 6
came to be disposed of on 21.11.2014. He submits that he had,
thereafter, preferred LPA No.707/2014 which came to be dismissed by
this Court on 13.01.2015, compelling him to approach the Supreme
Court by way of SLP Nos.11875-77/2015. It is only when these SLPs
came to be dismissed on 27.04.2015, that he took steps to lead evidence
before the Labour Court, but was shocked to learn that a 'No Dispute
Award' had already been passed against him on 29.01.2015.
Immediately thereafter, he preferred an application seeking recall of the
'No Dispute Award', which was passed in his absence without giving
him adequate opportunity to lead evidence or make submissions.
However, he submits that the Labour Court has rejected his application
for recall without appreciating the factual position. He, therefore, prays
that the writ petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned order
dated 05.05.2016 as also the Award dated 29.01.2015 and the matter be
remanded to the Labour Court for expeditious disposal after granting
opportunity to lead evidence to both sides.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2, while
supporting the impugned order submits that the petitioner did not give
any valid justification for his continued non-appearance before the
Labour Court for such a long period. He, thus, contends that once the
petitioner, despite repeated opportunities, had failed to duly appear or
lead evidence to prove his claim, the Labour Court could not be faulted
for passing the 'No Dispute Award' after coming to the conclusion that
the petitioner was not interested in pursuing the matter. He submits that
the petitioner's recall application merely made a reference to the
pending proceedings before this Court without giving any explanation
W.P.(C) 5180/2016 Page 3 of 6
as to why he could not appear before the Labour Court even on dates
when his writ petition was not listed before this Court.
5. At this stage, it may be noted that in the present petition there
are 12 applications filed by the petitioner which are currently pending,
wherein the primary allegation levelled by him is that the respondents
are relying on forged documents and, therefore, appropriate action
should be taken against them.
6. I have heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for
respondent no.2 at length and perused the record with their assistance.
7. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties,
although I find merit in the plea of the respondent no.2 that the
petitioner was not as vigilant in pursuing his industrial dispute as he
was expected to be, the fact remains that in the period during which the
petitioner failed to appear before the Labour Court between 2011 to
27.04.2015, i.e., when the impugned award and the order dated
05.05.2016 were passed, he was appearing in person and pursuing his
matters before this Court and the Supreme Court. It cannot, therefore,
be said that the petitioner was not interested in pursuing his dispute
before the Labour Court. In these circumstances, even though the
petitioner's absence can, at best, be treated as negligence, it cannot be
said that the same was deliberate.
8. Further, while determining the merit in the petitioner's prayer
for remand of the dispute to the Labour Court, this Court must be
mindful of the fact that the ID Act is a beneficent piece of legislation
which has been set up to promote industrial peace, improve service
conditions of industrial labour force and, by levelling the power
W.P.(C) 5180/2016 Page 4 of 6
relationship between the employer-workmen, facilitate resolution of
disputes arising between them. Therefore, the entire mechanism seeks
to ensure that a workman is empowered to raise his claim, have the
same adjudicated as per the principles of natural justice and,
undauntedly, seek a fair redressal of his grievances. Thus, despite
finding merit in the respondent No.2's plea that the petitioner was
negligent in not appearing before the Labour Court on some dates, the
petitioner's plea that it was not a case of his wilful non-appearance
before the Labour Court cannot be ignored. I am, therefore, of the view
that in the facts of the present case, depriving the petitioner of his right
to prove his claim would be premature and inconsistent with the aim
and object of this special social welfare legislation. In any event, since
no evidence had been led by either of the parties before the Labour
Court and the matter was still at the preliminary stages, it would be in
the interest of justice, to grant the petitioner one more opportunity to
have his claim adjudicated on merits. The impugned order and Award
are, therefore, liable to be set aside so as to enable the petitioner to have
his claim adjudicated on merits.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the
order dated 05.05.2016 as also the award dated 29.01.2015. The matter
is remanded to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication and, as prayed
for, the petitioner is granted 12 weeks' time to file his evidence by way
of affidavit of all his witnesses. The parties will appear before the
Labour Court on 29.04.2020, on which date the petitioner will tender
his affidavits of evidence in Court. The Labour Court will, thereafter,
proceed to decide the dispute in accordance with law after granting
W.P.(C) 5180/2016 Page 5 of 6
opportunity to the respondent no.2 to lead its evidence.
10. As the writ petition itself is being allowed, the pending
applications do not survive and are rendered infructuous. It is, however,
made clear that despite pleadings on this aspect, this Court has not
examined the merits of the petitioner's claims in the industrial dispute
raised by him. It will, therefore, be open to both sides to take all pleas
before the Labour Court, as permissible under law, including the plea
sought to be taken by the petitioner that the documents relied upon by
the respondent no.2 are forged as also the plea sought to be taken by
the respondent no.2 that the industrial dispute itself is not maintainable.
11. Keeping in view the fact that the matter has remained pending
before this Court for a very long time, the learned Labour Court is
requested to expeditiously deal with this matter, without granting any
unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
12. The writ petition, along with pending applications, is disposed
of in the aforesaid terms.
REKHA PALLI, J.
JANUARY 08, 2020
'sdp'
