Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 214
High Court of Delhi
DEEPA SHARMA, J.
New Age Advertising & Printers – Petitioner
Versus
Rajinder Kumar – Respondent
W.P.(C). No. 4341 of 2008
Decided On : 14-01-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Bhavna Dhami, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent: In person.
The court cannot act as an appellate court and can only set aside an award if it is based on no evidence, contrary to substantive law, or violates principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Ex-parte Award - Industrial Dispute - Section 27 of General Clauses Act - [Section 27 of General Clauses Act] - The court dismissed the petition challenging an ex-parte award in an industrial dispute case. The petitioner failed to prove that the summons of the court could not have been served upon them in the ordinary course, and the delay in filing the petition was not reasonably explained. The court emphasized that it cannot act as an appellate court and can only set aside an award if it is based on no evidence, contrary to substantive law, or violates principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an ex-parte award passed in an industrial dispute case, claiming that the award was misconceived and bad in law. The respondent contested the petition, arguing that the petitioner had not disclosed true and material facts and that the petition was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had concealed material facts and there was inordinate delay in filing the petition. It also emphasized that the petitioner failed to prove that the summons of the court could not have been served upon them in the ordinary course.
Issues: Concealment of material facts, inordinate delay in filing the petition, and failure to prove non-service of summons in the ordinary course.
Ratio Decidendi: The court cannot act as an appellate court and can only set aside an award if it is based on no evidence, contrary to substantive law, or violates principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition challenging the ex-parte award in the industrial dispute case.
1. Vide the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the exparte award dated 22.01.2003 passed by the labour No.III, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D.No.494/1998 in the matter between the management of M/s New Age Advertising & Printers and its workman Rajender Kumar.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the management was never served at any stage of raising of the dispute and he was not aware of the pendency of any industrial dispute before the concerned labour court. It is submitted that the management had continued to live at the same address but still was not served at any stage. It is further submitted that the award is based on misconceived facts and is bad in law. On these facts it is prayed that the award be set aside.
3. The petition is contested by the respondent/workman. It is submitted that the present petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has not disclosed true and material facts before this court and has also not come with clean hands. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed an application dated 17.01.2008 before Mr.Harish Dudani, Presiding Officer-II, Labour Court, Delhi for setting aside the award. Reply had been filed by the workman/respondent. Vide order dated 26.05.2008, the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte award was dismissed. The said order has not been challenged by the petitioner. It is submitted that this petition is therefore not maintainable. It is also submitted that the award has been implemented and the petitioner had handed over a cheque of Rs.20,000/- to the S.D.M. vide letter dated 28.12.2007 and also agreed to make payment of balance amount within two months. It is further submitted that the Petition is barred by Limitation. It is further submitted that the proceedings before the Trial court continued from 1998 to 2003 and within these five years the Petitioner had intentionally and deliberately opted not to appear and contest the matter. It was given several opportunities. Further it had the knowledge of the case and had been closely watching the proceedings and had intentionally not appeared with the sole intention to linger on the matter. The Petitioner/management was duly served again and again of the summons of the Trial Court and they refused to take the summons on 16.03.2001, 17.03.2001, 19.03.2001. The summons were served by affixation on 28.012.98 and 19.09.2000. It is submitted that the award is based on the material produced by the workman/respondent before the Trial court and thus is fair and reasonable. It is further contended that since the award does not suffered with any error, the same cannot be set aside. Reliance is placed on Sadhu Ram Vs Delhi Transport Corporation: 1984 SC 1467, Harbans Lal Vs Jagmohan Saran: 1985(4) SCC 333 and Calcutta Port Shramik Union vs Calcutta River Transport Association and Ors: 1988(Supp) SCC 768. It is submitted that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. In the present case, from the uncontroverted facts, it is apparent that the respondent was the employee of the petitioner. His services were terminated by the petitioner. He raised an industrial dispute which was registered as ID 494/98. The award was been passed on 22.01.2003.
6. The petitioner has challenged the award on the ground that it is misconceived and bad in law. The Petitioner had concealed the material facts from the knowledge of this court by not disclosing in the Writ Petition that it had filed an application dated 17.01.2008 before Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Karkadooma Courts, for setting aside the Ex-parte award dated 22.01.2003 and the same was dismissed by the Ld. Trial court vide its order dated 26.05.2008. The Petitioner has also not challenged this order dated 26.05.2008.
7. There is inordinate delay of more than five years in filing the present writ petition and no reasonable explanation is on record for this delay.
8. From the perusal o
