SHAM LATA SURI Vs. ASS. LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the award dated 10th November, 2009 passed by the Labour Court directing the management/ Petitioner to reinstate the workman back on duty along with back wages within 30 days from the date of publication of award and remanding the matter back for fresh trial of the matter thereby giving full opportunity to the Petitioner to contest her case before the Labour Court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner has a very good case on merit which, however, could not be brought or established before the Labour Court due to negligent conduct of her representatives/ advocates. Petitioner and her husband engaged Mr. D.P. Rana, Advocate and were in touch with him regarding the status of the matter. They used to accept the information supplied by Mr. Rana to be true. They also give money to Mr. Rana as and when demanded for payment of costs awarded by the learned Labour Court. The said counsel, however, neither deposited the costs nor pursued the matter diligently. In fact, on becoming suspicious about their counsel, when the Petitioner enquired from the learned Court, she came to know that the matter was never represented by Mr. Rana rather was represented by some other advocate Mr. P.P. Singh before the Labour Court. The Petitioner thereafter engaged another advocate however the second counsel was also negligent in his duties. LEARNED counsel further contends that the Petitioner is an aged lady and has been befooled by her representatives/ counsels and deserves sympathy from this Court and justice too demands that the Petitioner should not be made to suffer losses for the wrong done on the part of the counsels/ advocates. Also, Respondent No.2 has not placed on record any cogent evidence to establish the relationship of employer and employee between the Petitioner and Respondent before the Labour Court and thus, he failed to discharge the onus in this regard. The present award in favour of Respondent No. 2 is in a nature of a bounty which has accrued due to laxity on the part of the Petitioners counsel, thus the same be set aside.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.