Surender Sawhney v. Umesh & Ors

ORDER %

10.02.2015 CM No.3980/2014 in LPA No. 198/2014

¶1Notwithstanding that the facts disclosed in the application fall short of showing a sufficient cause to condone 867 days delay in filing the appeal, since consensus has emerged between the parties requiring the appeal as also the writ petition out of which the instant appeal arises to be disposed of, we condone 867 days in filing the appeal.

¶2CM No.3980/20 14 is accordingly allowed. LPA No. 198/20 14 & W.P.(C) 7099/2008 Page 1 of LPA No. 198/20 14 & W.P.(C) No.7099/2008

¶1The writ petitioner lays a challenge to an ex-parte award dated January 13, 2004 against the appellant who appears to be carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Indian Hand Fabs, F-89/5, Okhla, Phase-I, New Delhi-20.

¶2The challenge in the appeal is to an order dated September 05, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of CM No.11144/2010, invoking Section 17B of the ID Act, 1947, directing that last drawn salary/minimum wages, whichever is higher shall be paid by the appellant to the workman from the date of the award.

¶3Under an order dated March 03, 2014 passed in the appeal, the appellant had deposited Z 10 lacs in this Court which was released to the five workmen. Each one of them has got T2 lacs.

¶4It is agreed between the parties that the appellant shall deposit within two months from today in this Court further sum of T7.5 lacs, which shall be paid by the Registry to the five respondent workmen in equal proportion i.e. each workman would be paid T1 .5 lacs.

¶5Upon payment of said sum, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on September 05, 2011, review whereof was declined vide order dated November 11, 2011, shall be set aside. The writ petition shall be treated as having been disposed of setting aside the ex-parte award dated January 13, 2004 resulting in revival of ID No. 1042/1996.

¶6As agreed between learned counsel for the parties it is directed that ID No. 1042/1996 shall be listed for directions before the Presiding Officer of the concerned Labour Court on April 20, 2015. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court shall verify whether the appellant has complied with the additional order passed today by consent, and if it is found that the LPA No. 198/2014 & W.P.(C) 7099/2008 appellant has complied with the order passed by consent today, ID No. 1042/1996 shall be decided on merits after giving time to the appellant to file a reply to the statement of claim filed by the workmen.

¶7It is agreed between learned counsel for the parties that if compliance is not made with the consent order passed today in Court the appeal as also the writ petition filed by the appellant would be treated as having been dismissed. Ordered accordingly. k. The appeal and the writ petition, file whereof has been summoned in Court today and has been got listed with consent of parties, are disposed of.

¶10No costs. r CM No.3979/20 14 Dismissed as infructuous.

PRADEEP NADIAJOG, J. P1ATIBHA' i1kNir FEBRUARY 10, 2015 * rb LPA No. 198/2014 & W.P.(C) 7099/2008

$-16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 198/2014 SURIINDER SAWHNEY Appellant Represented by: Mr.Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate versus SHIRT UDESH & ORS Respondents Represented by: Mr.M.Taiyab Khan, Advocate W.P.(C) No.7099/2008 SIJRJNDER SAWHNEY Appellant Represented by: Mr-Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate versus SHRI UDESH & ORS Respondents Represented by: Mr.M.Taiyab Khan, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RAN!