DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this petition is to the award dated 30th September, 1993. It was an ex-parte award. It appears that the petitioner had appeared before the Labour Court and had filed written statement but absented after lastly appearing on 3rd August, 1989. After the award was made the petitioner did not file any application before the labour court for setting aside the ex-parte award presumably because of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Grindlays Bank v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others (1981 42 FLR 88 SC ).

(2.) ACCORDING to this decision the Industrial Tribunal becomes functus officio if the application is not moved within 30 days of the publication of the award in the gazette. In this case it is not disputed that by the time this petition was filed the period of 30 days had expired. This petition was filed in April, 1994. Even in this petition except making vague averments the petitioner has failed to give facts which may amount to sufficient cause for its non-appearance before the labour court. It has been averred that the case was being pursued by Panel Advocate of the the petitioner ms. Padma Jain who returned file to the department due to the change in panel of lawyers. The petition does not tell when there was a change in panel of lawyers and when the file was returned. Surely the petitioner knew that on change of panel of lawyers, that Ms. Padma Jain was not on their panel. Further it is pleaded that the file was misplaced with the old files. Except this vague averment no details of file with which this file may have been tagged on or misplaced, have been mentioned. It has also not been stated as to when it was traced. The petitioner was utterly negligent in not appearing before labour court for nearly four years since last appearance was made on 3rd August, 1989 and award made on 30th September, 1993. The petitioner has failed to show any sufficient cause. After the award the petitioner took another six months in filing this petition. Under these circumstances we find no ground to interfere in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. Dismissed.

(3.) LABOUR court record be sent back forthwith. Petition Dismissed.