ANIL SETHI Vs. SATISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the award dated 30. 8. 2007.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that the tribunal has not taken note of the averments and the stand taken by the petitioner management in his written statement wherein it was clearly stated that the petitioner had already closed its business.

(3.) THE contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in such circumstances Section 25-F could not have been attracted and it is only Section 25-FFF which will attract in the facts of the present case. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that even a specific issue in this regard was framed by the tribunal i. e. Issue no. 2 and the said issue was only framed after taking into consideration the stand of the petitioner management pleading closure of its business, otherwise in normal circumstances such issue could not have been framed by the Tribunal. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that simply because of the fact that the petitioner did not appear before the tribunal, no adverse inference could have been drawn by the tribunal against him. In support of his arguments counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in MCD Vs. Siri Niwas, (2004) 8 SCC 195. Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on yet another judgment of the Apex Court in district Red Cross Society Vs. Babita Arora and Ors. , (2007) 7 SCC 366, to support his contention that Section 25-FFF was attracted on account of the closure of the business of the petitioner.