Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 1400
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MAHESH GROVER AND SHEKHER DHAWAN, JJ.
The Maluka Khurd Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and others - Respondents
LPA No.1464 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided on : 12-08-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. Jasmeet Singh Ghumman, Advocate
Lack of communication between the appellant and the counsel is not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
Headnote:
Delay - Termination of Services - Lack of Communication
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the award of the Labour Court favoring the workman's termination of services. The appellant contended that the inquiry was duly conducted and known to the workman.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inquiry report was not produced before the Labour Court, and the appellant withheld quality evidence. The court also noted the delay of 366 days in filing the appeal, attributed to lack of communication between the appellant and the counsel.
Issues: Quality of evidence, delay in filing the appeal
Ratio Decidendi: Lack of production of inquiry report and withholding of evidence by the appellant, and lack of communication between the appellant and the counsel are not sufficient grounds for condonation of delay.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed on the merits as well as on the ground of delay.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 09.07.2015 where the present appellant had questioned the award of the Labour Court answering the reference in favour of the workman to hold the termination of his services to be bad in the eyes of law.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that inquiry was duly conducted and it was in the knowledge of the workman.
3. We find that this inquiry report has not been produced before the Labour Court and thus quality evidence was withheld by the appellant themselves. Learned Single Judge noticing the aforesaid and the fact of the management's witness stating about the innocence of the workman in at least one inquiry held the award to be perfectly justified and we thus do not see any reason to differ with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge when nothing adverse to the workman has been shown to us. That apart, the appeal is barred by a delay of 366 days which has been attributed to lack of communication between the appellant and the counsel. We may observe here that all the judgments are uploaded on the internet instantaneously and it would be erroneous to presume that the appellant would have no knowledge of the proceedings against them particularly when they themselves were the writ petitioner before this Court. Citing lack of communication between the counsel and the litigant simplicitor is not a good ground for condonation of delay unless backed by some material.
4. Dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of delay.
