Dismissed

Chander Bahadur v. Bishamber Sahai and Sons and Ors.

Delhi HC10 Feb 2025W.P.(C)/1618/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order dismissing his application to restore a withdrawn claim under the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the court could not decide matters merely on sympathy, noting the unexplained one-year delay and the absence of any action against the authorized representative.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The accompanying application for restoration also stands dismissed.

Chander Bahadur Vs Bishamber Sahai and Sons and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~83

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 10.02.2025

¶4

+ W.P.(C) 1618/2025 & CM APPL. 7901/2025

¶5

CHANDER BAHADUR .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Ms. Latika Choudhury, Advocate

¶7

versus

¶8

BISHAMBER SAHAI AND SONS AND ORS .....Respondents Through: None.

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶10

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶11

The petitioner workman has assailed order dated 26.10.2024 passed by the Labour Court, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, Delhi whereby an application under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Section 151 CPC to set aside the order dated 11.03.2019 was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, but failed to convince myself to even issue notice to the other side.

¶12

It appears that initially the petitioner workman filed a Statement of Claim under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act in which the respondent management had entered appearance and filed an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC on the ground that another

¶13

W.P.(C) 1618/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages

¶14

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.02.10 17:39:31 -08'00'

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 0.02.2025 18:53:34

¶16

claim of the present petitioner was already pending before the Labour Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act. At that stage, the authorized representative of the petitioner workman sought permission to withdraw the Statement of Claim and vide order dated 11.03.2019, the claim petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, on 01.02.2020 the petitioner workman filed an application for restoration of the claim on the ground that the statement of withdrawal was made by his authorized representative without instructions. The learned Labour Court dismissed the application on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry into the alleged conspiracy qua consent of the petitioner workman.

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioner workman submits that the withdrawal of the claim statement needs to be set aside keeping in mind the unfortunate circumstances of the petitioner workman, as he is visually challenged. In response to a specific query, learned counsel for petitioner submits that no action has been taken by the petitioner workman against his authorized representative alleging that the withdrawal statement was without consent.

¶18

Ofcourse, the court must keep in mind the welfare of the workman while dealing with such proceedings. At the same time, I am unable to ignore certain vital aspects.

¶19

As regards the petitioner workman being visually handicapped, I examined his Statement of Claim. Keeping in mind the nature and scope of

¶20

W.P.(C) 1618/2025 Page 2 of 3 pages

¶21

¶22

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 0.02.2025 18:53:34

¶23

these proceedings, I would refrain myself from commenting on the same. But suffice it to record that the court cannot decide matters only on sympathy.

¶24

There is nothing on record to explain as to why for almost one year the petitioner workman remained silent. The claim statement was withdrawn on 11.03.2019 but the application for restoration was filed on 01.02.2020.

¶25

The authorized representative of the petitioner workman was a labour union leader, who made the statement of withdrawal in view of the admitted position that for same cause of action, the petitioner workman had already initiated proceedings before an authority of competent jurisdiction, which proceedings were pending. In such circumstances, I find it difficult to believe that the authorized representative, against whom the petitioner workman has admittedly not taken any action till date, made the statement of withdrawal before the Labour Court without instructions, much less in conspiracy with anyone.

¶26

I find the present petition devoid of merit, so the same is dismissed. The accompanying application also stands dismissed.

¶27

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c 6fb4835d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F 80CBD2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2025.02.10 17:38:49 -08'00'

¶28

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.

¶29

FEBRUARY 10, 2025/ rk

¶30

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶31

W.P.(C) 1618/2025 Page 3 of 3 pages

¶32

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 0.02.2025 18:53:34

Chander Bahadur v. Bishamber Sahai and Sons and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chander Bahadur v. Bishamber Sahai and Sons and Ors.

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

M/S Indian Steel Corporation Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I

The Motor & General Finance Ltd. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Manjit Walia through Spa Sachin Walia Vs Delhi Development Authority

Sonia Vs Union of India & Anr.

DDA Vs Madhu Bala Dham

Mount Abu Education Society Regd & Anr. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

National Association of Street Vendors of India & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Retrovis Fashion Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Director, Dggi & Ors.

Hemant Kumar Vs Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Orion Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd. through Mr. Ajit Singh Dagar Gm-Hr Vs Regional P. F. Commissioner Delhi Central

Deepak Gupta Vs Dharmendra Kumar Gupta

Rajendra Sirpal Vs Surender Kumar Sirpal (Deceased) Thr Lrs

Mr Rajendra Sirpal Vs Dr. Surendra Kumar Sirpal (through Lrs)

M/S Biconsecurity Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shri Badshah