JAI BHAGWAN Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of impugned order dated 4.02.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal in Approval Application (OP) No.518/1993.

(2.) The services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent/management in the year 1993 and an application under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking approval from the appropriate Industrial Tribunal was filed. On 21.3.2001, the Industrial Tribunal concluded that the enquiry conducted by the management was vitiated. It permitted the management to prove its case before the court by leading evidence. After the management had examined its witness, the matter was then posted for the workman's evidence. Ultimately on 14.8.2002, the management's application, seeking approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, came to be dismissed because there was no appearance on its behalf, and also for non- payment of costs of Rs.300/- that had been imposed upon it by that court. This order was impugned by the management before this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.3904/2004 On 5.12.2006, this Court allowed the said writ petition. Consequently, the order dated 14.8.2002 passed by the Labour Court was set aside and that Court was directed to proceed with the matter and dispose of the management's application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking approval of the dismissal of the workman, on merits. On remand, on 23.2.2007, the Industrial Tribunal posted the matter for recording of evidence of the respondent/ management. Although the workman sought, and was granted, a number of adjournments for this purpose, he failed to carry out the cross examination. Ultimately, on 28.11.2007, the Labour Court closed the opportunity of the workman to cross examine the management's witness. The workman then moved an application before the Labour Court praying that since evidence of the management stood closed even before the matter went up to the High Court, from where it has now been remanded, the evidence of the management witness recorded after the remand, be not read, or treated as part of the record and/ or to allow petitioner to cross examine the management witness. This application was disposed of by the impugned order of 04.02.2008, whereby one final opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine the management witness.

(3.) Before me, counsel for the petitioner-workman has sought to explain away the fact that after the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 23.2.2007 directing the matter to be put up on 16.3.2007 for evidence of the management, the management witness, namely, Sh. G. K. Sharma was also duly examined without any objection by the petitioner and the matter has been specifically posted, at the request of the petitioner himself, for cross examination of the management's witness by the explanation that through all this time, and over all these hearings, he was not aware that this procedural error has been committed, and for that reason he did not take this objection earlier. He states that this was sufficient ground for setting aside or modifying the order passed by the Labour Court on 23.2.2007 and that for this reason alone, the learned Court ought to have granted this prayer. Petitioner's counsel states that he became aware of this procedural error for the first time only towards the end of January, 2008 when he inspected the file after the closure of the opportunity to cross- examine the management's witness by the aforesaid order dated 28.11.2007, which he wanted to challenge.