DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the writ petition the following prayer has been made.

(2.) A reading of the prayer reveals that when the writ petition was filed the Petitioner had not sought the relief of the case being remanded to the Labour Court. This was obviously for the reason that it was not in the contemplation of the parties that the Labour Court was not rendered functus officio thirty days after the passing of the Award as this was the then prevailing judicial opinion on this point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has now clarified by its Order dated 1/12/2000 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7092/2000 entitled Anil Sood v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II that its earlier pronouncement had been misconstrued and that the proper understanding is that the Labour Court retains the power to entertain and dispose off an application under Order IX Rule 13 for the setting aside of the ex parte award even after the said period of thirty days. This is being mentioned for the reason that Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, learned counsel for the Petitioner, has argued that the case be remanded back to the Labour Court for a fresh determination of the Petitioner's application under Order IX Rule 13, inasmuch as the Court had adhered to the view that it had been rendered functus officio. It was his contention that the interest of justice would be met if the remand order is passed subject to costs.

(3.) Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Workman, however, submits that it would be unfair to the Workman concerned to amplify and broaden the sweep of the relief claimed for in the writ petition. It was contended that the Workman has already awaited for adjudication of his claim and despite the passing of the impugned Award, has not been reinstated. If the case is legated to the Labour Court, Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal contended, the Workman would suffer the great hardship of a deno adjudication. The impugned Award, which is beyond assault on merits, would automatically be set aside. He has strenuously contended that since the writ petition is pending the Workman's application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act should be disposed off. He has further submitted that the writ petition itself be disposed off as the Workman is desirous of employment and is not merely seeking orders for payment of wages. In the face of these diametrically opposed stands, arguments on the entire matter were heard.