Sameer Prakash Maheshwari Vs Akhil Pandey

Akhil Pandey S/o Late Shri Manharan Lal Pandey, Aged About 62 Years, R/o- R-4, Vinoba Nagar, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Police Station- Civil Line, DistrictBilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate

¶14

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

20/08/2024

¶17

Digitally signed by SHYNA SHYNA AJAY Date: AJAY 2024.08.2210:43:04 +0530

¶18

This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.7.2024,

¶19

2 / 5

¶20

whereby, an application preferred by the Petitioner(s)-Employer for filing of the reply to the Statement of Claim in Case No.17/IDA/Ref/2023, has been dismissed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur.

¶21

Facts of the case are that the Respondent-Employee was working as a Consultant in the Editorial Department w.e.f. 1.12.2008 . He raised a Industrial Dispute against his termination before the concerned Labour Commissioner on 21.4.2023 and also filed a Statement of Claim before the Labour Court, Bilaspur, without reference from the appropriate Government and challenged the order of termination and also prayed to reinstate him with the difference amount of Manisana and Majethiya wage(s). The Labour Court issued notice to the petitioners (employer). On 3.5.2024, the respondent-employee submitted certain document(s) and sought time for his evidence, however, later on, at the stage of evidence, the concerned Labour Court proceeded ex-parte against the petitioners on account of their absence and fixed the case for evidence of the respondent on 6.5.2024. On 18.7.2024, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceeding and the same was allowed by the order dated 19.7.2024 subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved the subject application under Section 151 of the CPC for taking reply to the Statement of Claim on record and the same was rejected by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order is bad in law. The ex-parte proceeding has been set-aside by the order dated 19.7.2024 and immediately thereafter, the petitioners had moved an application for taking reply to the

¶23

3 / 5

¶24

Statement of Claim on record, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. He further submits that the rules of procedure are the handmaidens of justice and and to advance the cause of justice, the concerned Labour Court ought to have accepted and taken the reply of the Statement of Claim on record. For the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the matter of Bharat Kalra Vs . Raj Kishan Chabra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 465 , wherein, reliance has been placed on Kailash Vs. Nankhu and others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 , and it has been held that the time limit for filing of the written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC is not mandatory.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the documents annexed with the petition with utmost circumspection.

¶26

In the order impugned, the Labour Court has mentioned the chronological events. Even though the Employer/Petitioners have sought time after their appearance on 7.8.2023, for filing the reply but no reply has been filed. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application and raised an objection to the effect that the concerned Court is not duly notified, however, the said application was dismissed on 17.10.2023. Subsequently, an opportunity was given and the date was fixed on 21.11.2023 and 4.12.2023 and on such dates also, the reply was not filed by the petitioners. On the next date of hearing i.e. 14.12.2023, the petitioners again remained absent, therefore, an ex-parte proceeding was drawn, however, the same was set aside on 7.3.2024. Thereafter, a last opportunity was granted to the Employer and the case was fixed for 10.4.2024 to file the reply. On 10.4.2024, the petitioners again filed an

¶27

4 / 5

¶28

application raising an objection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, which was dismissed by imposing a cost of Rs.500/- . The Labour Court granted about four opportunities to the Employer and also given caution, but the petitioners did not file reply to the Statement of Claim. Despite the liberal approach adopted by the Labour Court, the petitioners were not serious in filing their reply. Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence on 2.5.2024 and subsequently, on 3.5.2024, the petitioners again remained absent and thereby, an ex-parte proceeding was drawn against the petitioners and the case was fixed for respondent’s evidence on 6.5.2024, however, the ex-parte proceeding was later on set-aside by the order dated 19.7.2024. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC for taking reply of the Statement of Claim on record, which was dismissed by the order impugned.

¶29

When an employee has raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short “the Act, 1947”), it is expected from the Employer to file reply in an prompt manner. The object of the Act in such type of dispute is to provide a legal mechanism for prevention and settlement of industrial disputes in an expeditious manner.

¶30

The Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules 1957 prescribes the mechanism to conduct the proceedings before the Labour Court. Perusal of Rule 10-B(2) of the said Rules would show that the opposite party or parties shall file their written statement together with documents, list of reliance and witnesses within a period of 15 days from the date of the first hearing. Further, sub-rule (3) of 10(B)

¶31

5 / 5

¶32

empowers only to extend the time limit for filing the statement under sub-rule (1) or written statement under sub-rule (2) by an additional period of 15 days. Further, Rule 10B(11) of the said Rules stipulates that the Labour Court shall ordinarily submits its award within a period of three months.

¶33

Revering back to the facts of the present case, the concerned Labour Court has granted various opportunities for about four times to the Employer/Petitioners and also even given a last warning to them. However, the manner in which, the Petitioners/Employer have sought time again and again, is against the spirit of the Act, 1947. Therefore, the case law relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is of no help to the petitioners and furthermore, no case is made out in favour of the petitioners to grant any further time to file reply of the Statement of Claim as earlier the trial Court has already taken a very liberal approach by giving them ample opportunities for the said purpose, however, inspite of that, the petitioners were not serious in filing their reply within the stipulated time and as a consequence, delayed the adjudication of the case.

¶34

For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The Writ Petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶37

Shyna

Sameer Prakash Maheshwari v. Akhil Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer Prakash Maheshwari v. Akhil Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijmohan Vs Balram Kumar Soni

Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Vs Santosh Kumar Keshari

Pushpa Vs Ramnath

I.k.verma And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Digambar Prasad Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rohit Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh