*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12th May, 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 2557/2001
% SH. JANG BAHADUR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate.
versus
M/S THERMOPLASTIC SURGICAL
& SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CM No.6759/2011 (of the petitioner for early hearing).
Allowed.
The writ petition is taken for hearing today itself.
W.P.(C) 2557/2001 Page 1 of 4
W.P.(C) 2557/2001.
1. For the reasons herein after appearing, even though none appears for
the respondent employer but need is not felt to await or hear the
respondent.
2. The petitioner workman impugns the order dated 1 st March, 2001 of
the Industrial Adjudicator allowing the application of the respondent
employer for setting aside of the ex parte award dated 30th August, 1999
subject to payment of costs by the respondent employer to the petitioner
workman of `5,000/-.
3. Notice of the petition was issued and on the application of the
petitioner workman further proceedings before the Industrial Adjudicator
stayed and remain stayed.
4. The application for setting aside of the ex parte award was made
within 13 days of the ex parte award. Upon the application being opposed
by the petitioner workman issues were framed thereon, evidence led and
thereafter the application allowed.
5. It has been put to the counsel for the petitioner that even if the writ
petition of the petitioner workman is to be allowed and the ex parte award
W.P.(C) 2557/2001 Page 2 of 4
to be allowed to remain, opportunity will necessarily have to be granted to
the respondent employer to challenge the same by way of writ petition in
as much as the respondent employer has had no opportunity to challenge
the award owing to the application for setting aside of the ex parte having
been allowed.
6. Moreover, there are divergent opinions of the Supreme Court on the
powers of the Industrial Adjudicator to so set aside the ex parte award.
7. In the circumstances, it is felt that no purpose would be served in
keeping this writ petition alive. The petitioner workman by preferring the
same has already delayed the matter by over ten years.
8. In the circumstances, while dismissing the writ petition and
relegating the parties to the Industrial Adjudicator it is directed that the
Industrial Adjudicator to now dispose of the proceedings within one year
of the parties first appearing before the Industrial Adjudicator.
9. The parties to appear before the Industrial Adjudicator on 8 th July,
2011. The counsel for the petitioner to inform the respondent employer and
the counsel of the respondent employer of today’s order and the said date,
to enable the respondent employer to appear before the Industrial
W.P.(C) 2557/2001 Page 3 of 4
Adjudicator on that date.
10. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner workman to, along with a
copy of this order, immediately approach the Industrial Adjudicator for
issuance of notice to the respondent employer for 8 th July, 2011.
11. The record of Industrial Adjudicator if received in this Court be
returned immediately.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
MAY 12, 2011
pp
W.P.(C) 2557/2001 Page 4 of 4