CHANDER BAHADUR Vs. BISHAMBER SAHAI AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner workman has assailed order dtd. 26/10/2024 passed by the Labour Court, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, Delhi whereby an application under Sec. 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Sec. 151 CPC to set aside the order dtd. 11/3/2019 was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, but failed to convince myself to even issue notice to the other side.

(2.) It appears that initially the petitioner workman filed a Statement of Claim under Sec. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act in which the respondent management had entered appearance and filed an application under Sec. 10 read with Sec. 151 CPC on the ground that another claim of the present petitioner was already pending before the Labour Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act. At that stage, the authorized representative of the petitioner workman sought permission to withdraw the Statement of Claim and vide order dtd. 11/3/2019, the claim petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, on 1/2/2020 the petitioner workman filed an application for restoration of the claim on the ground that the statement of withdrawal was made by his authorized representative without instructions. The learned Labour Court dismissed the application on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry into the alleged conspiracy qua consent of the petitioner workman.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner workman submits that the withdrawal of the claim statement needs to be set aside keeping in mind the unfortunate circumstances of the petitioner workman, as he is visually challenged. In response to a specific query, learned counsel for petitioner submits that no action has been taken by the petitioner workman against his authorized representative alleging that the withdrawal statement was without consent.