State of Haryana challenged the Labour Court order striking out defence for non-filing of written statement. The High Court set aside the order, granting one more opportunity subject to payment of costs.
Impugned order dated 21.1.2010 set aside. One more opportunity granted to file written statement upon payment of Rs.10,000/- costs.
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.
C.R.No.4194 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH.
C.R.No.4194 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.9.2010
State of Haryana and others
...Petitioners
vs
Ram Bhaj alias Amar Pal
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG.
Present: Mr.Ashok Jindal, Addl.Advocate General,Haryana, for the petitioners.
Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent.
Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral)
By way of present revision petition, the State of Haryana has challenged the impugned order dated 21.1.2010 passed by Labour Court-II, Gurgaon, whereby defence of the petitioners has been struck of for non filing of written statement and other documents. Though in this petition, the petitioners have also challenged the order dated 12.3.2010 whereby their application dated 8.2.2010 for setting aside the order dated 21.1.2010 was dismissed, however, it has been fairly conceded that the aforesaid application was not maintainable before the Labour Court.
Challenging the aforesaid orders dated 21.1.2010 counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are directory in nature and keeping in view the interest of justice, and the fact that the case is at the preliminary stage and no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent, the petitioners be
C.R.No.4194 of 2010
2
allowed one opportunity to file their written statement and other documents. However, on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and stated that enough opportunities were granted to the petitioners, which have not been availed of and now they cannot take benefit of their own negligence.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is well settled that defence of a party cannot be shut merely on the basis of techanilities and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in this regard are to be construed liberally. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents as the case is at the preliminary stage. Moreover, the respondents can be very well compensated with costs.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned order dated 21.1.2010 is set aside. The petitioners are granted one more opportunity to file their written statement and other documents subject to payment of costs which are assessed at Rs.10,000/-.The payment of costs shall be a condition precedent for allowing them to file their written statement.
Let the parties appear before the Labour Court-II Gurgaon on 4.10.2010. On their appearance, the petitioners shall tender the costs as aforesaid to the respondent-workman, and thereafter, the trial Court shall grant one more opportunity to the petitioners to file their written statement and documents, if any, by fixing a date. However, it is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioners and in case of their failure to make the payment of costs and file the written statement and other documents, as stated above, this revision petition shall be deemed to be dismissed.
C.R.No.4194 of 2010
3
Copy dasti on payment of usual charges.
( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge
September 16, 2010
rk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding filing of written statement is directory in nature allowing one more opportunity despite non-filing.
Whether striking out of defence amidst non-filing of written statement can be set aside if no prejudice is caused to the opponent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Haryana and others
Ram Bhaj alias Amar Pal
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
