Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Chairman, Nagar Palika Bayana vs Labour Court, Bharatpur ... on 11 January, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:2782]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4987/2006
1. The Chairman, Nagar Palika, Bayana, District Bharatpur
2. The Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Bayana, District
Bharatpur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Labour Court, Bharatpur
2. Udai Bhan Sharma S/o. Chhail Bihari, Surajpole Gate,
Bharatpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satyapal Poshwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prem Kumar Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
11/01/2024
1. By way of the instant petition, a challenge is made to the order impugned dated 26.05.2006, passed by the learned Labour Court in L.C.R. (Misc.) No. 46/2003 titled as Nagar Palika, Bayana vs. Udai Bhan, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 12.02.1998, was dismissed.
2. The ineluctable and concise factual matrix, necessary for the adjudication of the instant petition, is noted herein-under:-
2.1 That on 19.09.1993, the respondent-Udai Bhan was appointed as a daily wage worker on the post of Junior Engineer.(Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 07:44:47 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:2782] (2 of 11) [CW-4987/2006] 2.2 That on 01.08.1995, the services of the respondent-Udai Bhan were terminated by the petitioner by way of an oral/verbal order.
2.3 That being aggrieved, the respondent-Udai Bhan filed an application under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Conciliation Officer.
2.4 That conciliation between the petitioner-Department and the respondent-Udai Bhan culminated without arriving at a consensus. Accordingly, as per Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Bharatpur. 2.5 That on 07.08.1996, the respondent-Udai Bhan filed his statement of claim.
2.6 That upon receiving notice(s), the counsel for the petitioner- Department before the learned Labour Court filed his vakalatnama and thereafter, marked his appearance.
2.7 That on 20.08.1997, the learned Labour Court initiated ex- parte proceedings against the petitioner-Department as after filing the vakalatnama, the counsel for the petitioner-Department did not repeatedly appear before the court.
2.8 That on 12.02.1998, the learned Labour Court passed an ex- parte award holding the termination of services of the respondent- Udai Bhan as illegal, thereby directing his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages.
2.9 That being aggrieved, the petitioner-Department filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5699/1998 before this Court. The said (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 07:44:47 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2782] (3 of 11) [CW-4987/2006] petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.11.1998 whereby without expressing any view on merits, the petitioner-Department was directed and/or given the liberty to file an application before the learned Labour Court itself with regards to the setting aside of the ex-parte award dated 12.02.1998.
2.10 That being further aggrieved of the order dated 16.11.1998, as passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner-Department filed a D.B. Special Appeal No. 325/1999, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2003.
2.11 That resultantly, the petitioner-Department, in light of the liberty so granted, moved an application before the learned Labour Court for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 12.02.1998. 2.12 That after hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the learned Labour Court, vide order impugned dated 26.05.2006, rejected/dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner- Department.
2.13 That as a result, the instant petition is filed by the petitioner- Department for setting aside the order impugned dated 26.05.2006.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner- Department that the order impugned is neither sustainable in law, nor in the facts of the instant case. In this regard, it is averred that after receipt of the notices of the reference made by the learned Labour Court, the petitioner-Department immediately appointed Sh. Mohan Sharma as their counsel before the learned (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 07:44:47 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2782] (4 of 11) [CW-4987/2006] court below to plead their case. However, unfortunately, pursuant to the filing of his vakalatnama, the counsel so appointed could not appear before the learned Labour Court. Therefore, taking note of the continued absence, an ex-parte award was passed by the learned Labour Court. In order to draw a case for setting aside the ex-parte award, it was conclusively argued that as per the principles of natural justice, the litigating party cannot suffer for the negligence of his counsel or representative.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the order impugned is passed after having taken into consideration the comprehensive facts of the case as well as the corresponding law, duly applicable. Therefore, no interference is called for with the order impugned.
5. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record of the instant petition.
6. It is trite law that there is limited scope of interference with a well-reasoned order while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. Upon a perusal of the order impugned, it is noted that the learned Labour Court, vide order impugned dated 26.05.2006, dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner-Department for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 12.02.1998, on the primary ground of delay and laches. In this regard, it is evidently noted that the ex-parte award was passed on 12.02.1998. Thereafter, liberty was given by this Court to file the requisite application for setting aside the said order on 16.11.1998. (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 07:44:47 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2782] (5 of 11) [CW-4987/2006]
8. In this regard, it is noted that even if the factum of the petitioner-Department preferring S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. No. 5699/1998 is taken note of, even then, it would be prudent to appreciate the fact that the said petition, granting the liberty and/or directing the petitioner to file an application before the learned Labour Court, was passed on 16.11.1998. Therefore, even pursuant to the dismissal of the writ petition and the consequent grant of liberty to file the requisite application, the petitioner- Department remained inactive in their actions and slacked in filing the requisite application for a period of approximately 3 years and 3 months.
9. On the aspect of delay, reliance can be placed upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in (2014) 4 SCC 108 titled as Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Ors. vs. T.T. Murali Babu as well as Union of India & Ors. vs. N. Murugesan reported in (2022) 2 SCC 45 and Bichitrananda Behera vs. State of Orissa and Ors.:2023/INSC/902. In Chennai Metropolitan (Supra), it was held as under:-
"The doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 07:44:47 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2782] (6 of 11) [CW-4987/2006] circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant- a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis."
10. Even otherwise, it is noted that during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned court below, the petitioner- Department was given ample opportunities in order to plead their case. In this regard, it is noted that the following opportunities were given to the petitioner-Department for filing their reply before the court below, namely:
Opportunity 1: 19.12.1996 Opportunity 2: 13.03.1996 Opportunity 3: 08.05.1997 Opportunity 4: 04.06.1997 Opportunity 5: 01.09.1997
11. In this background, this Court must take it upon itself to note that it cannot be disputed that due to the delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice, the trust and confidence with which the Courts are placed, may be shaken and/or distorted. Many a times, the task of repeated non- appearance or adjournments is used to kill the tenets of comprehensive justice. Repeated non-appearance or adjournments break the back of litigants, who seek to remedy their purported injustice. However, it is noted at the same time, that the litigants must also be vary of the conduct and/or stage of the proceedings of their case. The Courts are entrusted to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of common man in the institution encumbered with the (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 07:44:47 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2782] (7 of 11) [CW-4987/2006] administration of justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shakes the faith of the common man in justice dispensation must be discouraged. Therefore, the Courts shall not be a party to the cause for delay, either caused by way of adjournments or repeated non-appearance, in dispensing justice. The Courts have to be diligent and take timely action in order to usher in an efficient justice dispensation system, which appreciates and maintains the faith in rule of law.
12. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Shiv Cortex vs. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. and Ors.: (2011) 9 SCC 678, wherein it was held as under:-
"14. ... Is the court obliged to give adjournment after adjournment merely because the stakes are high in the dispute? Should the court be a silent spectator and leave control of the case to a party to the case who has decided not to take the case forward?
15. It is sad, but true, that the litigants seek--and the courts grant--adjournments at the drop of the hat. In the cases where the Judges are little proactive and refuse to accede to the requests of unnecessary adjournments, the litigants deploy all sorts of methods in protracting the litigation. It is not surprising that civil disputes drag on and on. The misplaced sympathy and indulgence by the appellate and revisional courts compound the malady further. The case in hand is a case of such misplaced sympathy. It is high time that courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realise that adjournments do dent the efficacy of the judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later. The courts, particularly trial courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit.
16. No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in Code of Civil Procedure. Adjournments (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 07:44:47 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2782] (8 of 11) [CW-4987/2006] have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system.
17.... A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit--whether the Plaintiff or the Defendant--must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed. If they don't, they do so at their own peril."
13. Similarly, in Nandlal vs. Abdul Hamid and Ors.: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 811 of 2014, it was held as under:-
"1. ... The application was rejected on the grounds that the Power of Attorney was not produced, and also that, sufficient opportunities have been given for producing the evidence. Learned Tribunal noticed that on 13.3.2013, Nandlal was operated for cataract. He sought repeated adjournments in following six months period on the ground that he has been asked for checkups by the doctor, after every fifteen days. Learned Tribunal thereafter, fixed 10.4.2013, 7.5.2013, 9.7.2013 & 13.8.2013. Shri Nandlal did not appear and made a request to examine his son on his behalf, for which, the original Power of Attorney was not produced.
2. We do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal, rejecting the application for examining of the son as a Power of Attorney, in the absence of the original Power of Attorney. Sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant, after he had recovered from cataract operation. More than six months had passed, after the cataract operation, in which several dates were fixed for evidence. The appellant, did not avail the opportunities, on which the evidence is closed.
3. There is no error in the opinion of learned Single Judge that in the circumstances, the tenant wanted to delay and prolong the proceedings, on which the Tribunal rightly exercised his discretionary powers to close the evidence. The Special Appeal is dismissed"
14. Even in Jubeda vs. Chand Khan and Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ No. 11294/2015, it was held as under:-
(Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 07:44:47 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:2782] (9 of 11) [CW-4987/2006] "4. ... Despite giving many opportunities, again one more opportunity on 5.4.2013 was granted for cross-
examination while rejecting the objections raised by defendant. Again one application came to be filed by the defendant, which was also rejected on 31.05.2013 with the direction to the defendant to positively cross-examine the (5 of 9) [CW-
11294/2015] plaintiff, else the same will be closed. Despite that no cross- examination was done. Again an opportunity on 04.09.2013 was granted to the defendant but no cross-examination was done. On 18.10.2014, the plaintiff was present for the cross- examination since morning but counsel for the defendant prayed for time and the same was granted at the cost of Rs. 500/-. Ultimately, the cross- examination was closed on 08.01.2015.
5. While mentioning this history of so many opportunities having being granted to the defendant, learned trial Court has observed that more than adequate opportunities were granted to the defendant for cross-examination of plaintiff but in vein. It was also observed that recalling the order dated 08.01.2015 and further giving the opportunity to cross-examination will certainly amount to abuse of judicial process and will hamper the quick dispensation of justice. In these facts and circumstances, the application filed by the petitioner defendant came to be rejected.
13. If the impugned order is scrutinized on the touch stone of the principles propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid judgment, it is obvious that no such circumstance exists for which it can be assumed that the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction or has not properly exercised the same, which may warrant exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, there was no justification for the trial Court to allow the application filed by the petitioner defendant under Article 151 CPC. Thus, the order impugned rejecting the same is perfect. In view of above, the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is bereft of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Thus, the petition is accordingly dismissed."
15. Therefore, considering that delay was caused of over 3 years and 3 months in filing the application for setting aside the (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 07:44:47 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2782] (10 of 11) [CW-4987/2006] ex-parte award passed by the learned Labour Court i.e. liberty to file the application was granted by this Court on 16.11.1998 whereas the application was filed by the petitioner-Department on 24.04.2002; that the task of adjournments and/or repeated non- appearance is used to kill the tenets of comprehensive justice; that ample opportunities, as noted above, were granted to the petitioner-Department to furnish their reply, before the initiation of ex-parte proceedings; that repeated non-appearance breaks the back of litigants, who seek to remedy their purported injustice timely and relying upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Chennai Metropolitan (Supra), N. Murugesan (Supra) and Bichitrananda Behera (Supra), Shiv Cortex (Supra), Nandlal (Supra) and Jubeda (Supra), this Court is inclined to dismiss the instant petition.
16. In the opinion of this Court, the learned court below has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. This Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Court below. There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no palpable error has crept in the order of the learned court below, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
17. Accordingly, in view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 07:44:47 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2782] (11 of 11) [CW-4987/2006] Pooja /238 (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 07:44:47 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)