Allowed

Daleep Kumar S/O Shri Sahabram Khileri v. Managing Director

Rajasthan HC2 Jan 2019CW/24670/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that imposing cost for taking documents on record by a Labour Tribunal is unwarranted, unjustified, and illegal under the special nature of such tribunals. The court directed the labour court to dispose of the specific case by March 31, 2019, as clarified by the Apex Court. Further, no new documents shall be taken on record after the closure of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The order relating to the award of cost is set aside. The labour court is directed to dispose of the case by 31.3.2019. Further, no further documents shall be taken on record after evidence is closed.

Daleep Kumar S/O Shri Sahabram Khileri Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 24670/2018

¶3

Daleep Kumar S/o Shri Sahabram Khileri, Aged About 39 Years, Plot No. 40, Radhanikunj- I, Escon Temple Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶4

Naresh Kumawat S/o Shri Ramsingh Kumawat, Plot No. 1504, Baba Harishchandra Marg, Indira Bazar, Jaipur

¶5

Rajkumar Sharma S/o Shri Johri Lal Sharma, 125, Muktanand Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur

¶6

Yogendra Sharma S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1/240, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur

¶7

Kishanveer Yadav S/o Shri Ramprakash Yadav, 83, Patrakar Colony, Mansarovar, Jaipur

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Managing Director, D.b. Corp Limited (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dharmendra Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr.Nitish Kumar Bagri

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment / Order

¶14

02/01/2019

¶15

The petitioners have approached this court challenging the order by which cost has been imposed for taking documents on record. This court is of the view that the Labour Court and the Tribunals are expected to provide immediate and speedy justice to the persons who are required to approach them. The method of imposing cost for taking documents on record is required to be dealt with if the aforesaid purpose is to be achieved. Since the Tribunals are formed by the State Government as an

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-24670/2018]

¶18

additional/alternate forum for disposal of the cases, the procedure of imposing cost is not required to be adopted as the Civil Procedure Code is not to be followed stricto sensu. Sub-rule 7 of Sec.11 of the Act provides for imposing cost in circumstances subject to framing of rules. So far as Industrial Rules, 1955 are concerned, they do not provide any such rule of imposing cost. Even otherwise, it is noticed that neither the court fees is required to be paid for moving an application or raising of a dispute by filing of statement of claim nor for filing written statement. There is no concept of appointing lawyer through legal aid in the Tribunals. In view thereof, the action of imposing cost by the Tribunal is unwarranted and held to be unjustified and illegal.

¶19

For the purpose of quick disposal of the case, method should be adopted by the Tribunal whereby while recording the evidence and documents which are produced, may be taken on record at the relevant time itself and attempt should be made to dispose of the case as quickly as possible without entering into the complexity of the relevance or irrelevance of the documents at that stage. It is noticed that the cases are pending before the Labour Court and Tribunals for more than ten years and even case of more than 20 years remained pending, the delay in disposal of the cases by the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Court, results in defeating the very purpose for which the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal have been formed. It is neither in the interest of management nor in the interest of concerned person that case is pending for years together, the concept of payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement has arisen only because of

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CW-24670/2018]

¶22

long delay in disposal of cases by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Courts.

¶23

Without further adverting to the aforesaid aspect, it is now directed that keeping in view the aforesaid observation, labour Court shall proceed to decide the present case which is required to be disposed of prior to 31.3.2019 in terms of the directions issued by Apex court in relation to the cases arising out of Majithia Committee. Accordingly, the order relating to the award of cost is set aside. Further proceedings shall continue and case shall be disposed of at the earliest. Both the parties may submit their documents which they would like to submit at the time of evidence and after the evidence is closed, no further documents shall be taken on record by the Tribunal.

¶24

4. The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶26

Sandeep/-29

Daleep Kumar S/O Shri Sahabram Khileri v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daleep Kumar S/O Shri Sahabram Khileri v. Managing Director

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

Yogesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Raj and Ors.

State of Raj and Ors. Vs the Rajasthan Civil Services a

Manvendra Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt. Jamna Ben Pargi W/O Himmat Singh Damore, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Lal Vs M D General Manager Rsrtc and Ors.

Jagdish Prasad Gora S/O Shyobux Ram Gora Vs University of Rajasthan, through Its Registrar