RAMJIVAN GUPTA Vs. JAGRAN PRAKSHAN LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, assails the Award dated 15.07.2016, passed by the learned Labour Court X, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in ID No.4607/2016, rejecting the petitioner's/workman's claim after closing his evidence vide a separate order passed on the same date.

(2.) The petitioner joined the services of the respondent/management as a Phototype Setting Operator on 15.10.1992 and was promoted as a Production Officer on 01.11.2003. While he was working as a Production Officer, the respondent on 15.05.2012, issued an order transferring the petitioner from Delhi to Jammu. After receipt of the transfer order, the petitioner submitted an application dated 21.05.2012, along with his medical certificates, seeking leave on medical grounds which was granted to him w.e.f. 22.05.2012. After the expiry of the leave period, the petitioner was issued repeated letters by the respondent asking him to join duties at Jammu which he did not join and instead raised an industrial dispute claiming therein that he had been illegally terminated from service. When the said industrial dispute was taken up for consideration, the learned Labour Court vide its order dated 18.12.2015, granted time to the petitioner to file his affidavit in evidence and adjourned the matter for 04.03.2016 for recording of his statement and cross-examination. On 04.03.2016, an adjournment was sought by the petitioner on the ground that his authorised representative was admitted in hospital, which adjournment was granted to him and the matter was adjourned to 15.07.2016. On the said adjourned date, the petitioner was not represented and, therefore, the Court after noticing that the affidavit in evidence had not been filed by him closed his evidence. The Court then proceeded to pass the impugned Award on the same date rejecting the petitioner's claim by observing that the respondent/management was within its rights to transfer him from one place to another.

(3.) Impugning the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner who appears in person, submits that the learned Labour Court while closing his right to file evidence on 15.07.2016, has failed to consider the fact that this was the second date for filing of evidence and once the petitioner had already pointed out to the Court that his authorised representative was hospitalised, the Court ought to have granted at least one more opportunity to him to submit his evidence by way of affidavit, instead of hastening to pass the Award, on the said date itself. He further submits that on 15.07.2016, the petitioner was en route to the Labour Court and was held up in a jam near Dilshad Garden Metro Station and, therefore, could not appear before the Court in time. He, therefore, prays that the impugned Award be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Labour Court, after giving him an opportunity to file his evidence.