Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Indicon Boilers Limited vs The Presiding Officer And Another on 1 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No. : 2024:PHHC:043380
CWP-24946-2017 -l-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
235
CWP-24946-2017
Decided on : 01.04.2024
M/s Indicon Boilers Limited
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III,
Faridabad and another
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
None for respondent No.2.
2 3 ok ok
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -- M/s
Indicon Boiler Limited (Management), for seeking quashing of the
impugned orders dated 04.02.2016 and 04.07.2017 (Annexures P-3 and P-6,
respectively), passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III,
Faridabad (respondent No.1), whereby, application for recalling the order
dated 04.02.2016, was dismissed.
2. Vide impugned order dated 04.02.2016 (P-3), in the absence of
conducting any cross-examination, despite affording 9 effective
opportunities, learned Labour Court treated the cross-examination as nil.
Thereafter, the evidence of the workman was closed. Petitioner --
Management has also challenged the order dated 04.07.2017 (P-6), whereby,
application dated 07.03.2017 (P-4) filed by the petitioner - Management for
setting aside of order dated 04.02.2016 (P-3), whereby, the order directing to
treat cross-examination of two witnesses of the workman i... WW1 &
WWz2, as "nil", was dismissed.
3. On assailing both the orders before this Court, notice of motion
was issued on 02.11.2017, and thereafter, on 07.12.2017, further
proceedings before the Labour Court were stayed. Thereupon, the interim
authenticity of this order/judgment
Neutral Citation No. : 2024:PHHC:043380
stay order was continued.
Thus, till date reference under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, 'ID Act'), could not be decided within the
appropriate time-frame.
4. On perusal of the impugned order dated 04.07.2017 (Annexure
P-6), it is amply clear that petitioner --- Management was afforded nine
effective opportunities, but it failed to cross-examine the witnesses of the
workman, and said fact, has been recorded in the impugned order dated
04.02.2016 (P-3) also.
5. After taking note of all the factual aspects coupled with the fact
that there is an interim stay operating since 07.12.2017, which has led to
pendency of the reference before learned Labour Court, the present writ
petition deserves dismissal. The petitioner -- Management took nine effective
opportunities to cross-examining the witnesses and after finding no
alternative, learned Labour Court closed the evidence vide orders dated
04.02.2016 and 04.07.2017.
6. No legal or factual flaw has been pointed out by learned counsel
for the petitioner in the impugned orders. It appears that petitioner --
Management's motive is to prolong the proceedings only by taking one
excuse or the other.
7. Thus, prayer being in-genuine, present writ petition is hereby
dismissed.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
April 01, 2024
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
