VED PRAKASH DUBEY Vs. MAHESHWARI GAS SERVICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the above captioned three petitions, challenge is to the impugned order of 13th January, 2015 vide which the concerned Labour Court has permitted respondent-Management to be represented by a counsel while noting that there was an implied consent of petitioners to respondentManagement being represented by a counsel. It is also noted in the impugned order that respondent's counsel has appeared on 11 dates and had got the entire evidence of respondent-Management recorded.

(2.) Since the impugned order is being assailed in above-captioned three petitions on identical grounds, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they were heard together and by this common order, these petitions are being disposed of.

(3.) It was vehemently submitted on behalf of petitioners that there was no implied consent given by petitioners and so, in view of above-referred decisions, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. To oppose these petitions, learned counsel for respondent had relied upon another decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samarendra Das v. Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd, 2014 LawSuit(Del) 609 to submit that there was no objection from petitioners on 11 dates of hearing when the evidence of respondent-Management was recorded and the implied consent once given, cannot be revoked later. Thus, it was submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and so, these petitions ought to be dismissed.