Delhi Development Authority Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Delhi Development Authority vs Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Disposition Writ petition allowed Court Delhi Decided Oct 16, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/701939

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/701939
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Mukul Mudgal, J.
Decided On: Oct 16, 2003
Case Number: CW 2406/1995 and CM 8206/2003
Subject: Labour and Industrial
Disposition: Writ petition allowed

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial
Outcome / disposition: Writ petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Delhi Development Authority

Advocate Rajiv Bansal and; Aparajita Sinha, Advs

Respondent

Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Advocate Saijad Ali, Adv. for respondents 3 to 57

Legal References

Reported In: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)455; 107(2003)DLT603; 2004(2)SLJ308(Delhi)

Excerpt

- .....within 30 days of the date of the award. 3. the hon'ble supreme court in anil sood vs presiding officer, labour court ii : (2001)illj 1113 sc while reversing the judgment of a division bench of this court, holding that the industrial adjudicator had become infructuous after 30 days of the making of the award held as follows:-'if this be the position in law, both the high court and the tribunal (sic labour court) fell into an error in stating that the labour court had become functus officio after making the award though ex-parte. we set aside the order made and the award passed by the labour court and affirmed by the high court in this regard, in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the respondent conceded that application filed by the appellant be allowed, set aside the ex parte award and restore the reference. to decide the matter afresh, the parties shall appear before the labour court on 11-12-2000 to take further directions as regards the proceedings. as the matter is very old, it would be appropriate for the labour court to dispose of this reference as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from today.' 4. accordingly the writ petition is allowed. the impugned order dated 2nd june, 1995 is accordingly set aside. the parties are directed to appear on 21st january, 2004 before the labour court no.iv, tis hazari, delhi. the labour court will dispose of the application for setting aside the ex-parte award on or before 6 months from the date of first appearance. 5. the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule has already been issued in the writ petition on 5th December, 1995. The matter is taken up today for final hearing.

2. This writ petition challenges the Order dated 2nd June, 1995(Annexure P-1 at Pages 34-36 of the petition), refusing to grant the prayer made by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte award dated 9th May, 1994(impugned in the present writ petition as Annexure P-2) on the ground that the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with such an application as it had become functus officio within 30 days of the date of the award.

3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Sood Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court II : (2001)ILLJ 1113 SC while reversing the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, holding that the industrial adjudicator had become infructuous after 30 days of the making of the award held as follows:-

'If this be the position in law, both the High Court and the Tribunal (sic Labour Court) fell into an error in stating that the Labour Court had become functus officio after making the award though ex-parte. We set aside the order made and the award passed by the Labour Court and affirmed by the High Court in this regard, in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the respondent conceded that application filed by the appellant be allowed, set aside the ex parte award and restore the reference. To decide the matter afresh, the parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 11-12-2000 to take further directions as regards the proceedings. As the matter is very old, it would be appropriate for the Labour Court to dispose of this reference as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from today.'

4. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The impugned Order dated 2nd June, 1995 is accordingly set aside. The parties are directed to appear on 21st January, 2004 before the Labour Court No.IV, Tis Hazari, Delhi. The Labour Court will dispose of the application for setting aside the ex-parte award on or before 6 months from the date of first appearance.

5. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2003 Same Parties Delhi Development Authority vs Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge Mukul Mudgal, J.

Labour and Industrial