VINOD KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. If the petitioner failed to take timely steps in the proceedings to effectively prosecute Reference No.1129 of 2003 regarding termination from service till September 2, 2008 when his evidence was closed on the same day when neither he nor his representative turned up despite repeated calls on the day of the listing then this Court will not extend its helping hand to bring him out of the ex parte proceedings in the award passed on September 2, 2008 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Gurgaon.

(2.) The termination which is challenged by the workman was dated September 17, 1997. Non-appearance on September 2, 2008 before the court has been explained in the application for setting aside ex parte award and in this petition assigning reason for default that his authorized representative/Advocate Mr. Mahavir Tyagi had met with an accident in which he suffered a fracture of the leg and could not attend to the case of the petitioner, may explain the events of September 2, 2008 but the Court cannot disregard the fact that from 2003 to September 2, 2008 there was not a whit of evidence adduced by the workman on file which prolonged the litigation and the issues could only be struck in the year 2007.

(3.) The application for setting aside the ex parte award filed by the workman has been rejected by the Labour Court vide order dated November 11, 2009. A reading of the order reveals that plea has been taken by the workman that on September 2, 2008 when his matter was listed, his authorized representative was ill and so he went to inform him of the case being called on for hearing, but when he returned to the labour court he found his evidence had been closed. The labour Court reasoned that is such was the position then there is nothing on record as to whether the workman moved an application spontaneously in this regard for reentry in the proceedings. The application was moved after a month which is held to be belated. The workman also took a plea that his mother was not well and was under medical treatment due to which he could not move the application on time. He produced some documents by way of medical evidence to support his application but the Court found that the documents dated February 29, 2008 issued by the Dr. Lal Path Labs Pvt. Ltd. were regarding collection of some samples and not a treatment record. The application was dismissed as filed beyond limitation since the court had become functus officio. The labour court observed that the conduct of a party before the Court in protracting litigation is a relevant consideration in making awards and moulding relief/s. Section 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act does not give a carte blanche to grant relief by resort to all and every means.