UNITED COFFEE HOUSE Vs. ZIA HASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition filed by the management (the petitioner herein) is directed against an interim order dated 29. 09. 2007 by which the Court below has debarred the authorized representative of the management from appearing and conducting the case on its behalf.

(2.) NONE has appeared on behalf of the respondent/workman despite service of notice of this writ petition. Hence the matter has been heard ex-parte.

(3.) THE order assailed in this writ petition is at page 36 of the paper book and the same has been perused by me. The impugned order is a non-speaking order and does not spell out the reasons or facts of the case on account of which the authorized representative of the management has been debarred from appearing and conducting the case. The law at least expects the Court to give brief reasons for its conclusion one way or the other. The impugned order is a cryptic order and it was not expected by the court below to pass the order in the manner it has been passed simply referring to some precedents. It is not discussed in the said order as to how those judgments are applicable to the facts of this case. Under the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. The said order is, therefore, set aside and the court below is directed to hear the both sides and pass a fresh order on the application of the workman under section 36 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in case either of the parties may be aggrieved by fresh order to be passed by the court below then they may avail their legal remedy that may be available to them in law.