Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3521 of 2010 Petitioner :- Vinay Gulati And Another Respondent :- The Authority Under Minimum Wages/Dy. Lab. Com. And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Hitesh Pachori Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 11.12.2009 passed
by the prescribed authority in M.W.A. Case No. 158 of 2008 (State
Vs. Vinay Gulati and another), whereby petitioners’ application for
recall of the order dated 6.1.2009 directing for closing the
evidence of the petitioners has been rejected.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on
6.11.2009 the authorize representative of the petitioners who was
to attend the case was engaged in cross-examination of one of the
witnesses in another case M.W.A. No. 47 of 2009 (Raj Kumar Vs.
M/s Gulati Export) which was before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Moradabad and as such he could not attend the
Court in time which led to the closing of their evidence. In support
of the aforesaid averments made on application an affidavit was
also filed on behalf of the petitioners which was not controverted
and, therefore, merely, for the reason that previously the
petitioners had taken adjournment, the application was not liable to
be rejected.
I have considered the affidavit of the petitioners filed in support of
the recall application as well as the impugned order. The bare
perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioners’
application has been rejected on the sole ground that the
petitioners had been granted several adjournments in the past. In
my opinion, past conduct was not very material for the purposes of
deciding the present recall application of the petitioners when the
petitioners have shown sufficient cause for their absence on
6.1.2009 which reason has not been convert by any material from
the other side.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, interest of justice
requires that the petitioners be give lead one more opportunity to
give their evidence and the matter be heard thereafter.
Learned Standing Counsel also agrees that the matter be sent back
for decision on merit.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned
order dated 11.12.2009 is quashed and petitioners are permitted to
adduce their evidence within a period of one month from today
and thereafter the case M.W.A. No. 158 of 2008 shall be decided
on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possibly
preferably, within a period of three months.
Petition allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 27.1.2010
S.S.