Order on Board

29.04.2024

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article

226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs, which are as under:-

10.1 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire record from Labour Court, Korba in Case No.33/IDA/2013(Ref.) “Moong Ram Vs.

Factory Manager and another”.

10.2 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Korba (Chhattisgarh) to submit award in Case No.33/IDA/2013(Ref.) “Moong Ram & Ors. Vs. Factory Manager and another” expeditiously within a period of three months.

10.3 Any other relief in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded.

10.4 Cost of the petition may also be awarded.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, that dispute has been referred by appropriate government on 11.10.2013 to Labour Court, Korba (C.G.). In pursuance of aforesaid reference, Case No.33/IDA/2013(Ref.) is pending consideration before the Labour Court Korba (C.G.) between the petitioner and respondents since 21.10.2013 despite that no substantive progress has been made in aforesaid case and till date, evidence of first party has not been completed. It is further submitted that considering such a huge delay, learned Labour Court, Korba (C.G.) may be directed to expedite the trial/hearing and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within the specific time frame.

4. Petitioner has filed all the certified copies of order sheets right from

21.10.2013 to 05.01.2024 (Annexure-P/2). Perusal of order sheets show that since 2013, case is lingering on one or the other reason, particularly due to time taken by both the parties. Order sheets also show that, till date, evidence of first party has not been completed.

5. However order sheets show that case is pending since more than 10 years and even first party evidence has not been completed, till date.

6. Fair and expeditious trial is sine qua non for the parties under Article

21 of the Constitution of India.

7. In the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary & another, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 their Lordships of the Supreme Court unequivocally construed the right of speedy trial as fundamental right and held as under :-

“16. In Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (1994) 3 SCC 569 the Constitution Bench of this Court unequivocally construed the right of speedy trial as a fundamental right, and we can do no better the extract these paragraphs from that celebrated decision -

"86 The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result from impermissible and avoidable delay from the time of the commission of the offence till it consummates into a finality, can be averted. In this context, it may be noted that the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is properly reflected in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

8. In the matter of Hussain and another v. Union of India, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 702 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:-

“11. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. This Court has held that while a person in custody for a grave offence may not be released if trial is delayed, trial has to be expedited or bail has to be granted in such cases.”

"12. Timely delivery of justice is a part of human rights. Denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justi