D.T.C. Vs. Devinder Singh and anr.

.....petition before indian consulate high commission of india in uk under section 3(2) of the diplomatic and consular officers (oaths and fees) act, 1947 under 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] - as such, even the premature retirement of the workman is bad......the tribunal has found by the impugned award as follows:-'in the present case, the workman was holding the post of conductor and he was declared unfit for the post but as per the admission of the management in ws itself, no other post was offered to him, as such, the management cannot take any benefit of clause (a). the management has also not fulfilled the second condition as the period of 18 months during which the workman had remained medically unfit has not expired when he was retired prematurely. the workman met with an accident on 12-1-95 and was retired prematurely on 1-2-96. so, none of the conditions is fulfillled for retiring a person prematurely. as such, even the premature retirement of the workman is bad.'3. from the perusal of the above rule, it is clear that in the award of the industrial tribunal impugned in this court, the tribunal has correctly analyzed the aforesaid clause 10 and accordingly there is no error in the impugned award dated 27th august, 2002 which warrants interference in the writ jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution of india.4. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed in liming with no order as to costs.