Dismissed

Roshan Lal v. R H B

Rajasthan HC24 Aug 2015CW/11197/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Labour Court's order which denied an adjournment request and closed the petitioner's right to cross-examine a witness. The court upheld the Labour Court's discretion, noting the petitioner's history of dilatory tactics and defaulting on dates without valid cause.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as there was no illegality in the Labour Court's well-reasoned order dismissing the adjournment application and closing cross-examination due to the petitioner's dilato

Roshan Lal Vs R H B — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶3

ORDER

¶4

Roshan Lal Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board Jaipur (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11197/2015) Date of Order: August 24^th , 2015.

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶7

Mr. Roshan Lal, petitioner in person.

¶8

BY THE COURT :

¶9

The petitioner challenges the order dated 30-7-2015 in LCR No.38/2011 passed by the Labour Court-I, Jaipur, whereby the application for adjournment of the case was dismissed on cost of Rs,3000/- and the chance to the petitioner of cross examination of respondent's witness was closed. A prayer has also been made to direct for payment of subsistence allowance by the respondent Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter `the Board') to the petitioner from 17-82002 pursuant to the order by the Division Bench of this court on 18-5-2015 in DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No.1265/2014 and 1636/2014.

¶10

The facts of the case are that the petitioner, Junior

¶11

¶12

Accountant with the Board, was charge sheeted and finally dismissed from service vide order dated 3-1-2003. The

¶13

departmental appeal too was dismissed on 18-6-2004. A reference with regard to petitioner's dismissal from service with the Board is pending before the Labour Court. Pursuant to order dated 18-9-2012 in SBCWP No.4551/2004 (affirmed vide order dated 30-1-2013 in DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No.1337/2012) the proceedings of Labour court were to be completed within six months.

¶14

The Labour Court vide order dated 22-8-2014 closed the petitioner's right to cross examine the Board's witness for reason of his dilatory tactics. The order came to be challenged by filing SBCWP No.9300/2014, which petition was allowed on 29-9-2014 with a direction to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the Board's witness Ghanshyam Manglani.

¶15

On 1-7-2015 the Board's counsel placed on record

¶16

copy of the order dated 18-5-2015 DB Civil Special Appeal (w) No.1265/2014 informing of the disposal of appeal. However the petitioner cross examined the Board's witness Ghanshyam Manglani partially on 16-7-2015 and for paucity of time, the next date was fixed as 20-7-2015.

¶17

However, on 20-7-2015 instead of completing the

¶18

¶19

cross examination, the petitioner moved an application for adjournment of the case to 17-8-2015 due to death of his

¶20

brother on 17-7-2015. Considering the direction of the High Court for disposal of the case within six months the next date was fixed as 22-7-2015. On 22-7-2015 also the petitioner instead of completing the cross examination again moved application for adjourning the case to 18-8-2015. The Labour Court fixed the next date as 30-7-2015 at 2.00 PM.

¶21

Yet on 30-7-2015 the petitioner instead of appearing at 2.00 PM for cross examining the Board's witness moved an application for adjourning the case to 18-8-2015, and thereafter he did not appear before the Labour Court at 2.00 PM when the case was taken up and the Board's witness was present for cross examination.

¶22

In the aforesaid circumstances, the Labour Court while dismissing the application, filed by the petitioner for adjourning the case, on a cost of Rs.3000/- closed the chance of cross examination of Board's witness and adjourned the case for 6-8-2015. The petitioner's other application dated 16-7-2015 (as amended on 20-7-2015) for allowing subsistence allowance, was dismissed on the ground that earlier vide order dated 21-8-2014 a similar prayer of the petitioner had been rejected and that the Labour Court had no

¶23

¶24

power to review its earlier order dated 21-8-2014. Hence this petition.

¶25

Heard. Considered.

¶26

A perusal of the writ petition clearly indicates that the petitioner had basically prayed for quashing the order dated 30-7-2015 without disclosing any reason for not appearing before the Labour Court from time to time and finally at the fixed time for cross examination of the Board's witness on 307-2015. Further it also appears from the record that the petitioner had been regularly seeking adjournments by filing several applications, without due regard to the High Court's direction in SBCWP No.4551/2004 decided on 18-9-2012 for completing the proceeding within six months. In the circumstances, the Labour Court aside of closing the petitioner's right to cross examine the Board's witness had also rightly imposed costs upon the petitioner for making frivolous applications.

¶27

Although the petitioner appearing in person has submitted that he could not appear before the Labour Court on 30-7-2015, because his SB Cr.Misc. Petitions No.525/2007, 539/2007 and 1172/2008 were also fixed before the High Court on 30-7-2015, this fact does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Labour Court

¶28

¶29

as evident from the impugned order. Besides in the context of history of the cases detailed hereinabove the mere listing of the cases before the High Court was no ground for the petitioner's absence before the Labour Court. The lower courts are not obliged to adjourn the matters on the ground of the litigant being busy in the High Court. The lower courts have a right to conduct their proceedings in their discretion unless satisfied of good cause for adjournment sought. No good cause was found by the Labour Court in disallowing the petitioner's application for adjournment.

¶30

The petitioner has failed to show any illegality in the impugned order dated 30-7-2015, which is a well reasoned and speaking one. The discretion exercised by the Labour Court cannot in the facts of the case be said to be irregular, perverse or even unjust. No litigant has an unending right to demand adjournments. Unwarranted indulgence in granting adjournments has the potential of destroying the judicial process. And there are two parties to a litigation. The other party cannot be harassed by repeated adjournments and the dignity of the court compromised by repeated unwarranted demands for adjournments. So far the second prayer of the petitioner for the subsistence allowance is concerned, the same is without any merit, in view of the fact that the

¶31

¶32

petitioner has not challenged the order dated 21-8-2014, by which a similar prayer was rejected by the Labour Court and

¶33

the same has attained finality.

¶34

I, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly. (Alok Sharma), J.

¶35

arn/

¶36

¶37

All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.

¶38

Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.

Roshan Lal v. R H B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Lal v. R H B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baluram Vs R S R T C

Gaurav Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

M/S Vardhman Enterprises Vs Narendra Narain

Nasir Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mohammad Ishan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Naveen@Bahra Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp