The court reaffirmed the right to virtual hearings during the pandemic, invalidating ex parte orders issued without accommodating such requests.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 1st February, 2021 and the recovery certificate dated 10th March 2021 issued against the same. Vide the said impugned order, a sum of Rs. 8,04,808/- has been awarded along with 10% simple interest as gratuity amount to the Respondent No.1/Workman.

3. This is the second round of litigation between the parties. In both rounds of litigation, the Petitioner/Management was proceeded against ex parte and the order was passed by the Controlling Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

4. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per the summons issued on 25th November, 2020, the matter was listed on 7th December, 2020 at 11:00 A.M. before the concerned Authority. An e-mail was written to the Authority on 3rd December, 2020 by the Management, wherein the reasons for not appearing physically were stated, and a link was sought for joining for a virtual hearing. However, despite this e-mail having been sent, the Authority proceeded against the Petitioner/Management ex parte on 7th December, 2020, and thereafter, proceeded to pass the impugned order on 1st February 2021.

5. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that during the pandemic, the lawyer or the representative of the Petitioner/Management ought to have been permitted to join virtually and physical appearance could not have been mandated by the Authority. Accordingly, he submits that the order passed against the Petitioner/Management ex parte is not tenable.

6. In the morning, when the matter was called, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner was asked to contact the Respondent No.1/Workman or his Counsel. Ld. Counsel submits that a message was sent to the work. However, none appears on behalf of the Workman. An advance copy of this petition has already been served by e-mail to the Respondent, and the said email is on record.

7. This Court has considered the e-mail dated 3rd December, 2020 and the same is extracted below:

"From: Bhumit Solanki Solankibhumit2009@gmail.com

Subject:Rameshwar Singh vs M/s Sharatdas and Associates

Date:labdics.delhi@gmail.com, labjlc2.declhi@nic.in

CC:sdapl85@gmail.com, dassharat@gmail.com

Sir,

There are two matters pending adjudication before this forum titled as Rameshwar Singh vs M/s Sharatdas and Associates (both). There is one matter which is listed before the Labour Department under the Gratuity Act having No.Gr.60/LO/SD/2018/11475 and another matter pending before Deputy Labour Commissioner under the Delhi Shops and Establishment act, 1954 bearing No. S&E/SD/447/2016/5835.That both the matters are listed on 07.12.2020 for further arguments.

That the summons have been received but due to the ongoing pandemic it is not in the health interest of Mr. Sharat Das who is a senior citizen to attend the proceedings. However I am the advocate appearing on behalf of M/s Sharat Das and Associates in both the matters and have a letter of authority in my name on record. That as per the latest Judgment of the hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in VM Singh vs Madan Lal, the Hon'ble High Court has ruled that an Advocate cannot be asked to appear physically before court amid COVID-19 pandemic. That the order was passed on 24.11.2020 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva.

That in the light of the above circumstances I hereby request you to kindly accommodate us and send me the link to virtual hearing before this forum as the physical presence of Mr. Sharat Das or me i