D T C Vs. PURAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 15th May, 1996 whereunder the approval application filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default by the Industrial Tribunal (herein after referred to as 'the Tribunal'), as also the order dated 3rd January, 2007 passed on an application for restoration of the aforesaid approval application rejected on 15th May, 1996, whereunder the said restoration application was dismissed on grounds of gross delay and lathes. It may be noted that the aforesaid application was filed by the petitioner on 20th July, 2006, i.e. after a period of about ten years.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner DTC filed an approval application before the Tribunal seeking approval of the action of termination of the services of the respondent workman on 28th May, 1993. The said application was dismissed in default by the Tribunal on 15th May, 1996 on account of the absence of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, in the year 2006, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being WP(C) No. 2296/2006 praying inter alia for, quashing of the order dated 15th May, 1996. The said writ petition was filed after lapse of a period of about ten years. In the aforesaid proceedings, counsel for the petitioner made a statement on 20th February, 2006 that as there was no limitation prescribed for moving a restoration application in respect of dismissal of an application filed under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, liberty be granted to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and to file a restoration application before the Tribunal. After recording the statement of the counsel for the petitioner, the Court dismissed the writ petition on 20th February, 2006 and observed that no liberty was required to be given to the petitioner DTC and if any such remedy was available to the petitioner in accordance with law, it shall be free to avail the said remedy.

(3.) Pursuant thereto, a restoration application was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal on 20th July, 2006 stating inter alia that the matter was not contested by the Advocate who was engaged by the petitioner and on the relevant date, i.e. 15th May, 1996, when the Advocate did not appear, one Sh. Hawa Singh, the then Dealing Assistant, who used to appear in the matter, informed the Tribunal that his counsel was not available but the Court did not consider the request and dismissed the application in default. It was further averred in the restoration application that thereafter the said Mr. Hawa Singh expired and the counsel dealing the matter of the petitioner was also removed and subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court which was withdrawn with liberty to file the restoration application. Thus a prayer was made for recall of the order dated 15th May, 1996.