Justice Anu Malhotra dismissed the writ petition regarding orders of the CGIT-cum-Labour Court-2. The court found no infirmity in the orders closing the right to cross-examination after repeated adjournment requests and lack of appearance by the management.
No further notice was issued to the respondent and the petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~22
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
No steps in terms of the order dated 23.01.2017 and 27.07.2017 has been taken on behalf of the petitioner and it is submitted that the matter is still pending for judgment before the CGIT-cum-Labour Court-2. A similar submission was made on behalf of the petitioner on 27.07.2017 also.
Vide the present petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 04.07.2016 of the CGIT-cum-Labour Court-2 whereby the application of the petitioner seeking the setting aside of the order dated 21.03.2016 of the said CGIT-cum-Labour Court-2 was rejected. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for management evidence on 08.07.2016.
The impugned order dated 04.07.2016 however indicates that in the order dated 21.03.2016, the matter before the CGIT-cum-Labour Court was fixed for cross examination of WW1 but none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the right to cross examination of WW1 was closed being a last opportunity.
Vide order dated 21.03.2016, the matter was fixed for 02.05.2016 for management evidence and on 02.05.2016 the management had moved an W.P.(C) 11096/2016 page 1 of 2
application for setting aside the order dated 21.03.2016, the order dated 04.07.2016 of the CGIT-cum-Labour-2 Court indicates that the workmen in the instant case was examined on 20.07.2015 and after that his crossexamination had been deferred to 14.09.2015 on which date the AR of the management had sought an adjournment which was allowed to 16.10.2015 but on 16.10.2015 the matter could not be taken up as learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 21.12.2015.
On 21.12.2015, the AR of the management did not turn up till 1 p.m. and the matter was adjourned to 08.02.2016 for cross-examination of WW1 with directions to the AR of the management to come in the early hours to conclude his cross-examination before lunch but on 08.02.2016 the AR of the management again sought an adjournment which was also allowed and the matter was adjourned to 18.03.2016 for cross-examination of WW1 but on which date also the AR of the management again sought an adjournment which was once again allowed and the matter was adjourned to 21.03.2016 as last a opportunity for cross-examination of WW1.
On 21.03.2016 also the AR of the management chose not to crossexamine WW1 and did not reach till 3.00 p.m. and the Tribunal was compelled to close the right of cross-examination of management.
Taking into account the observations made in the proceedings dated 21.03.2016 and the proceedings dated 04.07.2016, it is apparent that there is no infirmity in the said orders and there is no ground for issuance of any further notice of the petition to the respondent.
The W.P.(C) 11096/2016 is dismissed.
ANU MALHOTRA, J
AUGUST 08, 2017/MK W.P.(C) 11096/2016
page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court orders refusing setting aside due to failure to exercise final opportunity for cross-examination were infirm.
Whether to issue notice to the respondent given the apparent regularity of the impugned orders.
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Chand Ram
Anu Malhotra
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
