Mukesh Kumar Vs. P.O., Labour Court No. Ix (Delhi) and anr.

Mukesh Kumar vs P.O., Labour Court No. Ix (Delhi) and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 07, 2000

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/691546

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/691546
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: A.K. Sikri, J.
Decided On: Feb 07, 2000
Case Number: CWP No. 492 of 1999
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

The case questioned whether the Labour Court was justified in dismissing the application that was moved by the petitioner on the same date when the award was passed against him on the ground that the Court became functus officio - In view to this, it was held under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Court ...

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mukesh Kumar

Advocate Mr. Rajeev Agarwal, Adv

Respondent

P.O., Labour Court No. Ix (Delhi) and anr.

Advocate Mr. Sunil Goyal, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)339; 84(2000)DLT256

Excerpt

the case questioned whether the labour court was justified in dismissing the application that was moved by the petitioner on the same date when the award was passed against him on the ground that the court became functus officio - in view to this, it was held under article 226 of the constitution of india the court was entitled to entertain the application - hence, the matter was remanded back to the labour court and also, the parties were directed to appear before the court - ordera.k. sikri, j.1. rule. with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage. 2. ex parte award was passed against the petitioner. perusal of the said award dated 3.11.1995 shows that when the case was listed on 3.11.1995, the workman had appeared in the morning. however, since he did not appear thereafter till 2.15 p.m. the award was passed against him. the petitioner moved the application on the same date i.e. on 3.11.1995 itself stating that he could not appear in time and requested for giving short date. it was followed by another application dated 20th february, 1996. the labour court dismissed the application dated 20th february, 1996 by order dated 5th march, 1998 on the ground that it had become functus officio. however, the labour court lost sight of the fact that first application was moved on 3.11.1995 itself which is annexed to this paper book as annexure p-3 and today mr. aggarwal has produced certified copy of this application also. since, the application was filed on the same date on which the award was passed labour court had not become functus officio and could entertain the application. the impugned order dated 5.3.1998 is accordingly set aside. the matter is accordingly remanded back to the labour court. parties to appear before the labour court on 21st february, 2000. the labour court will decide the applications on merits within one month from the date of appearance before me. 3. the order be given dusty to both the parties.

Full Judgment

ORDER

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage.

2. Ex parte award was passed against the petitioner. Perusal of the said award dated 3.11.1995 shows that when the case was listed on 3.11.1995, the workman had appeared in the morning. However, since he did not appear thereafter till 2.15 p.m. the award was passed against him. The petitioner moved the application on the same date i.e. on 3.11.1995 itself stating that he could not appear in time and requested for giving short date. It was followed by another application dated 20th February, 1996. The Labour Court dismissed the application dated 20th February, 1996 by order dated 5th March, 1998 on the ground that it had become functus officio. However, the Labour Court lost sight of the fact that first application was moved on 3.11.1995 itself which is annexed to this paper book as Annexure P-3 and today Mr. Aggarwal has produced certified copy of this application also. Since, the application was filed on the same date on which the award was passed Labour Court had not become functus officio and could entertain the application. The impugned order dated 5.3.1998 is accordingly set aside. The matter is accordingly remanded back to the Labour Court. Parties to appear before the Labour Court on 21st February, 2000. The Labour Court will decide the applications on merits within one month from the date of appearance before me.

3. The order be given dusty to both the parties.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2000 Same Parties Mukesh Kumar vs P.O., Labour Court No. Ix (Delhi) and anr. Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge A.K. Sikri, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226

Labour and Industrial