Remanded

Sanjeet Kumar Gupta @ Sanjeet v. M/S Bansal Industries and Anr.

Delhi HC4 May 2018W.P.(C)/4685/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an award dismissing a claim petition because the petitioner was denied a proper opportunity to adduce evidence. The Court directed the Industrial Adjudicator to permit the petitioner and respondent to lead evidence and decide the matter within three months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award dated 21.01.2011 is set aside. The Industrial Adjudicator is directed to give the petitioner and respondent an opportunity to adduce evidence and decide the matter within three mont

Sanjeet Kumar Gupta @ Sanjeet Vs M/S Bansal… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~27

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Judgment: 04.05.2018

¶4

- WP (C) 4685/2016

¶5

SANJEET KUMAR GUPTA @ SANJEET ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.D.B. Yadav, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

M/S BANSAL INDUSTRIES AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: None.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

¶9

VINOD GOEL, J. (ORAL)

¶10

The petitioner has challenged the award dated 21.01.2011 in ID No. 09/08 (234/08 New) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-09, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (in short ‘Industrial Adjudicator’).

¶11

Despite the notice of the writ petition having been served, there has been no appearance on behalf of the management/ respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 did not appear on 02.02.2017, 16.05.2017, 24.07.2017, 19.12.2017 and 01.03.2018. The respondent no.2 is a formal party.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner was seriously sick and for that reason the petitioner

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

WP (C) 4685/2016

¶15

could not appear before the Industrial Adjudicator on 21.01.2011. He submits that the petitioner had already filed his affidavit in evidence on 16.11.2010. He submits that on that day the counsel for the petitioner had appeared before the Industrial Adjudicator and sought a date on medical grounds, which was declined and evidence was closed and award was rendered against the petitioner dismissing his claim petition.

¶16

He further submits that subsequently the petitioner filed an application along with affidavit and prescription dated 21.01.2011 of his wife on 26.02.2011 for setting aside the Award dated 21.01.2011 but it was dismissed by the Industrial Adjudicator.

¶17

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶18

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petitioner was not given the due opportunity by the Industrial Adjudicator for adducing his evidence in support of his claim. He had already filed his affidavit in evidence on 16.11.2010. On the crucial date, request was made for adjournment on medical ground which was declined without any justification. There could be no intention of the petitioner to delay his own case particularly when his affidavit in evidence was already filed on previous date. Therefore, the impugned award dated 21.01.2011 is hereby set aside with the direction that the Industrial Adjudicator shall give one more opportunity to the petitioner to

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

WP (C) 4685/2016

¶21

adduce his evidence. The Industrial Adjudicator shall also give opportunity to the respondent to adduce its evidence and decide the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within three months from 09.07.2018..

¶22

The parties shall appear before the Industrial Adjudicator on 09.07.2018.

¶23

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶24

Trial court record be sent back immediately.

¶25

(VINOD GOEL) JUDGE

¶26

MAY 04, 2018
“shailendra”

¶27

Page 3 of 3

¶28

WP (C) 4685/2016

Sanjeet Kumar Gupta @ Sanjeet v. M/S Bansal Industries and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeet Kumar Gupta @ Sanjeet v. M/S Bansal Industries and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kapoor Vs University of Delhi & Anr.

Jai Prakash Vs D.T.C.& Anr.

K.K.Dhawan Vs Export Credit Gurantee Corp. of India Ltd. & Ors.

Mangt. of D.T.C. Vs Jai Prakash

Sundar Lal Vs Central Bank of India

D.T.C. Vs Sh.Bijender Singh

Bijender Singh Vs D.T.C.

Fateh Singh Sanwariya (Deceased) through His Legal Representatives Vs Central Bank of India

M/S Vibhor Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Aman Chopra Vs Jitender Kumar

D B Corp Limited Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ram Singh Vs D.T.C

M/S Uttam Agencies Vs Asstt. Collector & Ors.

Ram Phal Verma Vs Scooter India Ltd.