AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J
The petitioner''s challenge to the order dated March 6, 1995 by which his services were terminated having been negatived by the Labour Court vide its award dated June 4, 1996, he has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner prays that the orders be set aside. A few facts may be noticed.
The petitioner claims that he joined service as a Mall-cum-Chowkidar in January, 1994. His services were terminated on March 6, 1995. He served a notice of demand. The matter was referred to the Labour Court. After the completion of pleadings, the case was fixed for the petitioner''s evidence on April 16, 1996. The petitioner did not produce any evidence. The case was adjourned to May 7, 1996. He still did not produce any witness. The petitioner was granted another opportunity. The case was adjourned to May 21, 1996 subject to payment of costs. Still, the petitioner did not produce any evidence. The Court adjourned the case to May 28, 1996. When the petitioner failed to produce any witness even on that date, the Court closed the evidence. The case was adjourned to June 4, 1996 for the evidence of the respondent-management. On that day, neither the petitioner nor the representative of the management appeared. The Court dismissed the case "for-non-prosecution". After the lapse of one year and three months the petitioner filed an application for restoration on September 12, 1997. Notice of the application was given to the respondents. A reply was filed. Vide order dated May 20, 1998, the petitioner''s application for restoration of the case was dismissed. The petitioner impugned the order dated May 28, 1996 by which his evidence was closed, the order dated June 4, 1996 by which the reference was rejected and the order dated May 20, 1998 by which his prayer for restoration of the case was turned down.
Ms. Abha Rathore, Counsel for the petitioner has made a two-fold submission. Firstly, it has been contended that the Labour Court had no power to dismiss the case for non-prosecution. It could have passed an ex parte order rejecting the claim. Secondly, the learned Counsel has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner''s prayer for restoration of the case should have been allowed.
On a perusal of the writ petition, we find that the petitioner had failed to adduce any evidence despite the grant of four opportunities. In this situation, the Court could have legitimately taken the view that the petitioner was unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings and that he had no evidence to support his claim. The action of the Court in closing the petitioner''s evidence cannot be said to be unjust or unfair. Still further, after the evidence was actually closed, the petitioner instead of appearing in the Court had chosen to keep away. Faced with, his situation, the Court had rejected the petitioner''s claim for non-prosecution. No explanation for the repeated defaults has been given by the petitioner. None was given even at the hearing. In this situation, we are satisfied that any interference shall be unjust and unwarranted by the circumstances of the case.
Ms. Rathore contended that the Court had to answer the award. Assuming it to be so, the answer in the present case is obvious. The petitioner had led no evidence. Thus, there was nothing to even suggest that there was any infirmity in the order. In the circumstances, the action in dismissing the claim for non-prosecution really amounted to an answer against the petitioner. Consequently, we reject the contention.
As for the second contention, it may only be mentioned that no explanation much less than a satisfactory explanation for the delay and continued defaults having been given, the Court was entitled to take the view that the petitioner was not serious about prosecuting the case. It had found no sufficient cause for the delay and, thus, rightly rejected his request for restoration. We find nothing wrong wit the view taken by the Labour Court.
In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition. It is consequently, dismissed in limine.