AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mukul Mudgal J.
This is an application for recalling the Order dated 18th May, 2004, passed in CM.No.5164/2004 in WP(C) No.426/99. The matter has been sent to the Court as the review was sought though I am not sitting on the labour roster. The relevant portion of the Order dated 18th May, 2004 reads as follows:-
"This is a joint application u/s 151 CPC by which the parties have settled the dispute which arises from the present writ petition. The terms of the settlement have been signed by the parties and the application is signed by their counsel. I have gone through the terms of settlement which are just and reasonable. The application is allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the settlement."
It is not in dispute that the respondent No.3 has been throughout represented by Mr. Kailash Vasdev prior to his designation as senior advocate and thereafter by Mr. Sanjay K. Shandilya, Advocate. It is also not in dispute that the applications(CMs.68 52-53/04) was not served on Mr. S.K. Shandilya though one Shri Mohinder Madan, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent No.3 when the Order dated 18th May, 2004 was passed, settling the disputes between the parties. There is also some dispute about the status of Shri Sohan Lal, representing respondent No.3. However that is not for this Court to decide in this application and can be agitated before the appropriate forum.
Mr. Vasdev, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No.3/applicant has contended that the respondent No.3 was never represented by Shri Mohinder Madan and only in the settlement application, he surfaced for the first time. Without prejudice to the pleas of the parties, I am satisfied that the Order dated 18th May, 2003 should be recalled on the ground that it was passed without service of the copy of the compromise application on the existing counsel for respondent No.3. The Court a this stage is not concerned with the internal dispute of the union or as to who is in control of the union and the Court is more concerned with the counsel who represented the parties and it is appropriate that in case any application, affecting the rights of the parties is filed, it ought to be entertained only when the service upon the existing counsel is complete even though the respondent No.3 may have filed another vakalatnama of Shri Mohinder Madan, Advocate. This vakalatnama was filed without notice to the existing counsel, Shri S.K. Shandilya. Therefore the appropriate order in the present situation would be to recall the order dated 18th May, 2004 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the settlement or without prejudice to the plea of the parties which may be raised before the appropriate Court in support of the settlement that it is just and reasonable and ought to be accepted. These pleas can be raised before the Court hearing labour roster. Accordingly, the order dated 18th May, 2004, passed in CM.No.5164/2004 in WP(C) No.426/99 is recalled.
Applications stand disposed of accordingly.