Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Sukarma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Rajiv Nainwal - Respondent
CM(M) 1216 of 2022, CM Appl. 48669 of 2022 and CM Appl. 48670 of 2022
Decided On : 21-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. maintainability of petition under article 227 doubted. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's request for virtual hearing presented. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. no prior request for virtual hearing found. (Para 3) |
| 4. court's limitation on monitoring video hearing requests. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. order disposing of the petition and applications. (Para 8 , 9) |
1. I have serious doubts as to whether this petition would at all be maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, in view of the request made, I am entertaining the matter.
2. The only prayer of the petitioner, as canvassed by Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the office of the Joint Labour Commissioner, Labour Department, New Delhi, which is presently hearing Case No. 02/PGA/LO/NDD/2022/650-652, filed by an employee Rajiv Nainwal against the petitioner, should be directed to extend the facility of virtual hearing to the petitioner.
3. The record does not indicate that any such request was made before the learned Joint Labour Commissioner and rejected.
4. Nonetheless, Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel submits that the office of the learned Joint Labour Commissioner did not permit the application to be filed. He has filed a copy of the application which was attempted to be presented before the learned Joint Labour Commissioner as Annexure P-1 to this petition. The application reads thus:
"GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRIORITY OF DELHI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
LABOUR DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE BUILDING, PUSA CAMPUS,
NEW DELHI-11012
Mr. Rajiv Nainwal... ....................Employee
Versus
M/s. Sukarma Technologies Private Limited.......Respondent/ Employer
Application for virtual hearing
The petitioner respectfully submits as under:
1. That this case is pending before this authority. The next date of hearing is 06/10 2022.
2. That the counsel Mr. Vijay Gupta, Advocate (Enrolment No. D/30/1968) who is 76 years old is currently unwell and has been advise by his doctor to conduct the hearings virtually, through video conferencing only.
3. The respondent accordingly prays that this Learned Authority may kindly be pleased to:
i) allow this application and pass orders directing virtual hearing in the above case through video conferencing; and
ii) any other or further orders or directions in favour of the counsel may be passed as this authority may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."
5. This Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not in a position to monitor requests for video hearing before other judicial authorities.
6. As such, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Joint Labour Commissioner to take a decision on the petitioner's application seeking permission to appear virtually in the proceedings.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view on whether the application is required to be allowed or rejected. It would be for the learned Joint Labour Commissioner to take a view in that regard, keeping all relevant factors in mind.
8. This petition is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous applications are also disposed of.
9. Copy of this order be given dasti to learned Counsel for the petitioner under the signature of the Court Master.
The court affirmed that while it cannot oversee video hearing requests for other authorities, such requests must be appropriately considered by the relevant administrative body.
The court reaffirmed the right to virtual hearings during the pandemic, invalidating ex parte orders issued without accommodating such requests.
Covid-19 - Pandemic - Streamlining process of virtual hearing and restraining personal/physical hearing - Circular restarting of physical hearing of District Court and also from its subsequently havi....
The court emphasized the right to a fair hearing and the necessity for a reasoned order as fundamental principles of natural justice.
The right to cross-examination is a substantive right, which should not be compromised due to administrative confusion regarding court procedures.
Nomenclature of the petition or the nature of relief sought for is not the only determining factor, but the nature of power available to be invoked before the High Court is one such important guiding....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
