High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/3504/2017dismissed

Sat Narain Sharma v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal And ANR

2017-05-03Mr. Justice Darshan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.3504 of 2017 Date of decision: 03.05.2017 Sat Narain Sharma ... Petitioner vs.

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cumlabour Court, Bathinda & anr. ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

Present:

None for the petitioner.

*** RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(ORAL) In this writ petition, the award dated October 14, 2010 has been challenged in the year 2017 after the reference was dismissed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bathinda denying relief to the workman.

When the matter came up for hearing on February 22, 2017 for the first time, I asked the counsel to produce the reply to the demand notice filed by the management as well as the written statement put in before the Labour Court. The order was not responded to and is in non-compliance of directions material to the understanding of the case. When the matter came up on March 22, 2017, a prayer was made for grant of further time to comply the order dated February 22, 2017 and the case was adjourned to today.

Today, no one appears to press the petition when the case was called on for hearing. There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay of seven years in approaching the Court from the date of the award. The delay is, to say the least, inordinate and therefore, I would refuse to entertain the Sonia Bura 2017.05.04 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

CWP No.3504 of 2017 -2petition and instead dismiss the same.

I find no legal necessity to adjourn the case only to serve the ends of justice to take my previous orders forward since those were made only to probe the matter somewhat deeper to examine the prayers, hunting the point of view of relief. Thus, I find no germane reason to adjourn this case suo motu for non-appearance of counsel only to do lip service to the mantra of adjourning the case in trying to act in the interest of justice for nothing, when the petitioner has nothing to offer meanwhile to take his case forward over the cliff of dismissal. The petition is dismissed. No application will be entertained hereafter to revisit the case. The file is closed. (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 03.05.2017 sonia

1. Whether speaking/non-speaking?

Yes

2. Whether reportable?

No Sonia Bura 2017.05.04 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh