ORDER
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. Petitioner Sumitra Devi is the Legal Representative of Shri Suraj Bhan who was working with Delhi Transport Corporation (D.T.C.). On 19.6.1990 he was relieved of his services by DTC as he was continuously absent and maximum sanction able leave had also elapsed. Shri Suraj Bhan protested against his removal from service in the aforesaid manner and when DTC did not accede to his request for reinstating him, he raised industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication with the following terms.
“Whether Sh. Suraj Bhan himself abandoned his job on his services were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management and if so what relief is entitled and what directions are necessary in this regards ?”
2. On receipt of the reference, Labour Court proceeded to adjudicate upon the matter. After the pleadings were over and issues were framed, matter was fixed for evidence of Shri Suraj Bhan on 29.6.94. However, Shri Suraj Bhan or his authorised representative did not turn up to lead evidence and the Labour Court passed Award dated 1.8.94 granting no relief to him on the ground that since the burden of proving the term of reference was upon the workman but he failed to substantiate his claim by not adducing any evidence.
3. Shri Suraj Bhan died in the meantime but, the date of his death is not stated in the writ petition. However, application for setting aside the aforesaid Award dated 1.8.94 was filed by widow of Shri Suraj Bhan on 7.9.94. In this application also date of death of Shri Suraj Bhan is not mentioned. No application for impleadment of the petitioner as LR was filed either and the petitioner straightway choose to file the application for setting aside award dated 7.9.1994. This puts question mark on the maintainability of such an application. Be that as it may, on this application Labour Court framed the following issues:
“Whether there is sufficient cause to set aside the impugned Award”?
4. Evidence was lead on this issue and ultimately order dated 1.5.96 was passed dismissing the application of the petitioner. That has led the petitioner to file present writ petition challenging impugned order dated 1.5.96.
5. The main thrust of the argument of the counsel for the petitioner was that adverse order dated 1.5.96 is passed in undue hurry and giving no chance to the petitioner to explain her version. In fact, according to the petitioner, the non-appearance of the workman on 29.6.94 was inadvertent as the wrong date was noted by the authorised representative of the petitioner and, therefore, there is sufficient cause to set-aside the impugned Award.
6. A perusal of the order dated 1.5.96 passed by the Labour Court would show that the Labour Court has considered this very aspect in detail and has found that there were contradictions in the averments made in the application and evidence led before the Court which persuaded the Labour Court not to believe the version of the petitioner in her application and coming to the conclusion that there was no sufficient cause for non-appearance on 29.6.94 and in fact petitioner had come out with a after thought story. The relevant portion of the order dated 1.5.96 passed by the Labour Court is reproduced below :
“I may state that the impugned Award was in fact on merits as the issues were framed on 17.12.93 in the presence of the parties and case was listed for workman evidence on 29.6.94. On that day Shri K.P. Gupta, A.RM. did appear but none appeared on behalf of the workman nor any evidence was present. Consequently, workman’s evidence was closed and a `No Relief Award’ was passed for want of evidence or any other material on the record. The averment in the applications under reference that a `No Dispute Award’ was passed was factually wrong and contrary to the facts on the record. Now, as regards the sufficiency of reasons for non-appearance on that day is concerned, it appears that the plea taken by the applicant is after-thought. In para-2 of the applications, it was stated that written statement was filed on 8.11.93 and case was adjourned to 29.6.94 but claimant noted it to be 29.7.94. However, AW-1 stated that the case was listed on 8.11.93, thereafter it was adjourned to 17.12.93 (in fact as per record the issues were framed in the presence of the party) and stated that when Court was approached, it was informed that matter was adjourned to 29.7.94. Thus, there is contradictions, in the fact stated in the application and evidence led before this Court. Not only this, in the application it was stated when the claimant attended the Court on 29.7.94, the reader of the Court informed the date to be fixed on 29.8.94 and the authorised representative when appeared on 29.8.94 for filing of the replication, he was informed that the matter was closed as it was fixed on 29.6.94. Here again AW-1 make a further improvement stating that in fact on 29.8.94 being Janamashtami, a Gazetted Holiday, they came to the Court on next day i.e. 30.8.94. On that day it was informed to them that the case was ordered `No Dispute Award’ on 29.6.94.
The perusal of the content of the applications and evidence on the record shows that just to make it ‘inadvertent mistake’ in recording the date of hearing in their diary, they given the date 29.6.94, 29.7.94 and 29.8.94, unmindful of the facts that 29.8.94 was a Gazetted Holiday. When they realised this mistake, they tried to fill up the lacuna by stating that in fact they were not present on 29.8.94, and were present on 30.8.94. Even otherwise when the issues were framed on 17.12.93, as they failed to file the replications and case was listed for workman evidence it is contrary to the record that they came to court to file replications on the record on 29.8.94, which on the fact of it, that they have no cause to show but came out with an after thought story. The case was reserved for passing an Award on 29.6.94 and application under reference was moved on 7.9.94 i.e. more than 2- 1/2 months. The applicant failed to account for the period consumed for non-approaching the Court at the earliest. On this account also the application is not maintainable and stands dismissed. File consigned to the Record Room.”
7. The Labour Court has analysed the evidence on record, which was led on the issue as to whether there was sufficient cause to set-aside the impugned Award and has come to the conclusion that there was contradictions in the case put by the petitioner in the application and the evidence led in support of the application and in fact the petitioner had tried to fillup the lacunae by coming out with after thought story. The order is passed after analysing the evidence on record and no infirmity can be found in the order dated 1.5.96.
8. There is another reason which compels me not to interfere with the impugned order. Shri Suraj Bhan, the workman who had raised the industrial dispute has expired. In fact the date of his death is not mentioned and in what manner petitioner got herself substituted in place of Shri Suraj Bhan is not even stated. In any case, the workman having already died, no purpose would be served in setting-aside the Award now and remanding the case back to the Labour Court for re-trial. I may state this is only an additional ground for not interfering with the impugned Award under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is discretionary jurisdiction. Otherwise, I have already observed above that the impugned order of the Labour Court refusing to set-aside the Award on the ground that application filed by the workman did not disclose any sufficient cause is proper and valid.
9. Writ petition, which is devoid of any merit is, accordingly, dismissed. No orders as to costs.