Mangt. of Ccw Vs. Partap Singh

Mangt. of Ccw vs Partap Singh

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Delhi Decided Aug 03, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/706183

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/706183
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Madan B. Lokur, J.
Decided On: Aug 03, 2004
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 934 of 2002
Subject: Labour and Industrial
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

- DIVORCE BY MUTUAL CONSENT PERSONAL PRESENCE OF PARTIES EXEMPTED POWER OF ATTORNEY TO DISSOLVE THE MARRIAGE The special power of attorney in favour of one Mr. Lal Babu Tiwari was executed by the petitioner (husband) to appear before the Court and testify about the contents of the petition. The petitioner has ...

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 25F

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mangt. of Ccw

Advocate A.K. Bhardwaj, Adv

Respondent

Partap Singh

Advocate Sanjoy Ghosh, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 25F
Reported In: 116(2005)DLT307; [2005(105)FLR227]; (2005)IILLJ146Del

Excerpt

.....which the documents do not require any further evidence.[para 3] if both the parties, by way of affidavits or through counsel, state that they are married, and are able to produce proof of the marriage and that they have been living separately and have not been able to live together for the prescribed period, then there can be no reason as to why the court should not record its satisfaction as envisaged under section 13-b(2) of hindu marriage act, despite the fact that parties had not appeared in person and pass a decree for divorce.[para 6] where the parties are living far away from the jurisdiction of the court competent to dissolve the marriage, the parties after filing their affidavits can appoint attorneys to act on their behalf. attorney is competent to act on behalf of the principal on the basis of power of attorney executed by the principal. the courts have been allowing attorneys to file the petition, to withdraw the petition, to carry on proceedings in the court on behalf of their principal in all other cases. the attorney can also act in matrimonial cases as per instructions of their principle. the court can take necessary precautions to prevent frauds being perpetuated on it but unless the court smells some kind of fraud being played with it, the court should normally recognize the act of the attorneys. i therefore allow this petition. the order of the trial court insisting on the personal appearance of the parties is set aside.[para 8] - 2. there is no dispute that the petitioner is an industry nor is there any dispute that the respondent/workman is a workman within the meaning of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (the act). quite clearly, the respondent/workman is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the machinery available under the act notwithstanding the existence of the administrative tribunals act......administrative tribunal since the respondent/workman was a government servant.2. there is no dispute that the petitioner is an industry nor is there any dispute that the respondent/workman is a workman within the meaning of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (the act). quite clearly, the respondent/workman is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the machinery available under the act notwithstanding the existence of the administrative tribunals act.3. it may be pointed out that in a. padmavalley v. cpwd, 1991 (1) slr 245, a bench of five members of the central administrative tribunal, hyderabad bench took the view that in matters pertaining to the industrial disputes act, an applicant seeking relief must ordinarily exhaust the remedy available under that act. i find no reason to take a different view and it must be held that the respondent/workman was entitled to avail the benefits of the provisions of the industrial disputes act.4. as far as the merits of the case are concerned, the dispute referred for adjudication was as follows:'whether the action of the management of air, new delhi in terminating the services of sh. partap singh, fitter on daily rated/muster roll w.e.f. 26.12.87 is justified? if not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from what date?'5. the respondent/workman was employed as a fitter and joined service some time in june, 1982. according to the petitioner, he joined some time in july, 1982. be that as it may, according to the respondent/workman, his services were terminated by the petitioner some time in 1987 while according to the petitioner, the respondent/workman stopped working with effect from 16th may, 1983.6. the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte by an order dated 16th july, 2000. the petitioner thereafter moved an application for recalling the ex parte order but that was dismissed on 5th january, 2001. the petitioner did not challenge the order whereby it was proceeded against ex parte.7. the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. A preliminary issue raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the reference before the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal (the Tribunal) was not competent inasmuch as jurisdiction in the case vested with the Central Administrative Tribunal since the respondent/workman was a Government servant.

2. There is no dispute that the petitioner is an industry nor is there any dispute that the respondent/workman is a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act). Quite clearly, the respondent/workman is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the machinery available under the Act notwithstanding the existence of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

3. It may be pointed out that in A. Padmavalley v. CPWD, 1991 (1) SLR 245, a Bench of five members of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench took the view that in matters pertaining to the Industrial Disputes Act, an applicant seeking relief must ordinarily exhaust the remedy available under that Act. I find no reason to take a different view and it must be held that the respondent/workman was entitled to avail the benefits of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, the dispute referred for adjudication was as follows:

'Whether the action of the management of AIR, New Delhi in terminating the services of Sh. Partap Singh, Fitter on daily rated/Muster roll w.e.f. 26.12.87 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from what date?'

5. The respondent/workman was employed as a Fitter and joined service some time in June, 1982. According to the petitioner, he joined some time in July, 1982. Be that as it may, according to the respondent/workman, his services were terminated by the petitioner some time in 1987 while according to the petitioner, the respondent/workman stopped working with effect from 16th May, 1983.

6. The petitioner was proceeded against ex parte by an order dated 16th July, 2000. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for recalling the ex parte order but that was dismissed on 5th January, 2001. The petitioner did not challenge the order whereby it was proceeded against ex parte.

7. The respondent/workman filed his affidavit by way of evidence and he gave his testimony by entering the witness box. The petitioner did not cross-examine the respondent/workman.

8. In view of the unrebutted evidence given by the respondent/workman, the learned Tribunal held that the services of the respondent/workman were terminated with effect from 26th December, 1987, as claimed. Since the respondent/workman had put in more than 240 days of continuous service, he was entitled to the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with inasmuch as no show cause notice was given to the respondent/workman before terminating his services.

9. The case put up by the petitioner that the respondent/workman abandoned service with effect from 16th June, 1983 was disbelieved since absolutely no evidence had been led by the petitioner in support of this contention.

10. I do not find any error or any perversity in the conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal. The petitioner chose not to contest the reference at its own peril.

11. I find no merit in the writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2004 Same Parties Mangt. of Ccw vs Partap Singh Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge Madan B. Lokur, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226; Industrial Disputes Act,...

Labour and Industrial