Mool Chand vs Presiding Officer and Another

Swatanter Kumar, J.—Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 7.8.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-l, Faridabad. The workman had challenged the order dated 19.12.1990 terminating his services. The Government had referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Faridabad, for adjudication. The learned Labour Court had framed three issues, which read as under-

"i) Whether enquiry conducted by the management is fair and proper?

ii) Whether the punishment awarded by the management is commensurate with the charges?

iii) As per reference?"

On issue No. 1 the parties had led evidence and the issue was decided in favour of the workman. In relation to conclusion of evidence on the other two issues, the matter was fixed for recording of the evidence of the workman on various dates. The workman changed his representative/counsel and as many as six adjournments were granted. However, the workman failed to lead any evidence. Consequently, vide order dated 18.5.1998, learned Labour Court closed the evidence :0f the workman and fixed the case for arguments. An application was filed for review of this order on the ground stated in that application. The application for review was dismissed by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 7.08.1998, which has been impugned in the present revision petition. In fact the challenge in this revision petition is to the orders dated 18.5.1998 and 7.8.1998.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner-workman that the learned Labour Court has erred in not reviewing its order and not granting last opportunity to the present petitioner (workman) to conclude his evidence. While on the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the management that the petitioner was granted more than required opportunities to lead his evidence. It is his total irresponsibility and negligence which has resulted in passing of the order dated 18.5.1998. Learned Counsel for the respondent has referred to Clause 8 and 9 of Rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, to contend that at best three opportunities can be granted and not more than of a week''s duration for each party to the dispute to conclude its evidence.

No doubt the aforestated rules are indicative of the Legislative intent that there should be expeditious disposal of the references by the labour courts. The expression ''shall'' further signifies the anxiety of the law maker to have such references answered and decided not only with expedition but within the shortest possible duration. It is also true that the workman had been negligent in pursuing his remedy to some extent, as he failed to lead his evidence inspite of four opportunities. From the zimini orders, which have been produced on the record, it appears that Mr. S.K. Bakshi, representing the case of the workman, fell sick. Then he had engaged Mr. Hoob Lal to pursue the matter. A medical certificate was placed on record to show that the workman was sick on 4.5.1998. In these circumstances, the workman could not conclude his evidence on the adjourned dates. Expeditious disposal is the synthesis of every procedural or adjudicative law. Expeditious disposal of cases would always go in long run with achieving the ends of justice. The basic purpose of every adjudicative law have to determine the dispute between the parties and to give finality to such disputes. Penal orders/orders of serious consequences in procedural law should normally be proceeded by orders of lesser gravity. At this stage it will be appropriate to make a reference to the decision of this Court in the C.R. No. 4380 of 1998 titled as Suraj Bhan v. Rajender Parshad and Anr., decided on 24.12.1998, where the Court has held as under-

"For example, in the present case, four opportunities were granted before striking out the defence. Thus, one more opportunity could have been granted subject to costs so as to put the party concerned at notice. This cannot be stated to be mandate of any provision, but certainly, the interest of justice and proper administration of justice would call for such interlocutory orders before passing the order of the present kind.

The provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC imposes an obligation upon the defendant to present written statement in his defence on the very first date of hearing or within such a time the Court may permit. Thus, the Court may be justified in calling upon the defendant to present the written statement on the very first date of hearing.

The procedural law is enacted primarily with the object of doing substantial justice between the parties and provide finality to such determination. Again intention is to prevent multiplicity and/or frivolous litigation to achieve the object of this golden thread underlying the entire procedure prescribed under the Code. In my humble, opinion, the orders of such drastic consequences, should normally proceed orders of lesser gravity at different stages of the suit. At the cost of repetition, it may be noticed that the Court must not be understood to indicate that grant of number of opportunities is a pre-requisite for passing orders like the impugned one. This question will have to be controlled by settled principle of law but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case."

The expression ''shall'' would have to be given some what varied consideration and would be understood to have meant ''may''. The object of such a Legislation cannot be intended to provide a meaning to the language of the Section so as to divest the Court of its discretion. The judicial discretion with its purposeful meaning and with accepted connotations must have a very pervasive field. There may be circumstances where the Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, which may be compelling one can grant an adjournment beyond three adjournments to meet the ends of justice. This discretion of the Court could hardly be controlled by legislative language in the nature suggested by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The workman, obviously, is a person, who lacks means so as to enable him to get professional services. It would not be unjustified if the Court gives little liberal attitude to the workman within the limitations of law. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also stated that the petitioner would not claim back wages if ultimately the workman succeeds for the period during which he sought adjournments for leading evidence.

In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that subject to costs the workman could have been granted another opportunity to conclude his evidence. Another factor, which has to be taken into consideration at this stage, is that Issue No. 1 has already been decided by the Court and the workman had led evidence on that issue.

In the circumstances aforestated, while I allow this revision petition, set aside the order dated 18.5.1998 and 7.8.1998 passed by the learned Labour Court. Faridabad. Learned Labour Court shall give one last opportunity with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 1,000/-, costs being conditional, to the workman to conclude his evidence. Only one date will be given, on which date the workman shall produce his all evidence at his own risk and responsibility. He may also obtain summons from the Court, if he so desires, but the production of the witnesses will be his own responsibility. In addition thereto the workman will be bound by the statement made by the learned counsel appearing on his behalf in this revision petition, as aforenoted.

With the above observations, this revision petition is disposed of.