THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S JAI JAWAN GAS SERVICE v. SUDHIR SINGH

1. Vide present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.10.2014, whereby the ld. Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioner for taking on record fresh written statement to the claim petition filed by the workman.

2. The notice of the claim petition to the petitioner Management to put its appearance was issued on 24.09.2013. Sh. Anjanee Kumar, AR of the Management appeared on 26.11.2013 and sought time to file the written statement, which was allowed. 2014:DHC:6523

3. On 12.12.2013, fresh authority letter was filed on behalf of the petitioner Management and further time was sought to file the written statement, which was allowed subject to cost of Rs.300/-.

4. On 17.01.2014, an advance copy of the written statement was supplied to AR for the workman and matter was adjourned for filing of court copy as well as rejoinder and framing of issues for 17.02.2014, on which date, rejoinder was filed and issues were framed on the undertaking of the AR of the Management Sh. Puneet Tandon that he would file the court copy of the written statement during the course of the day. However, the same was not filed. Accordingly, the case was adjournment for W.E. on 21.05.2014, on which date, the workman filed his affidavit and supplied copy of the same along with documents to the counsel for the petitioner / Management.

5. On 21.08.2014, examination-in-chief of the workman was recorded and since both the parties were willing to settle the matter amicably, at joint request, his cross-examination was deferred.

6. On the next date of hearing, i.e., on 15.09.2014, newly appointed AR of the Management appeared and filed an application before the ld. Tribunal for taking on record fresh written statement. The AR for the Management petitioner submitted before the Tribunal and before this court that the court copy of the written statement could not be filed inadvertently and the previous AR of the Management Sh. Puneet Tandon was disengaged by the Management and he left the file. However, on perusal of the said file, the Ld. Tribunal revealed that the court copy of the written statement could not be located nor any office copy was available in the said file and as such he had been constrained to file a fresh written statement.

7. The application filed by the petitioner Management was strongly opposed by the AR for the workman before the Tribunal and submitted that the said application has been moved only to delay the proceedings, as the advance copy of the written statement had already been supplied to the workman. Moreover, the Ld. Tribunal find drastic changes of facts in the written statement which the petitioner intended to file. In the previous written statement, the Management had denied the relationship of the employer and employee with the workman, whereas in the subsequent written statement, a new plea has been taken that the workman resigned from the job after receiving full and final dues. Both these please are inconsistent. This cannot be accepted that the petitioner Management was not aware whether the workman was its employee or not or whether he had resigned from the job after taking full and final dues.

8. Similarly, other pleas raised in the subsequent written statement are also inconsistent with the previous written statement like the plea regarding continuous working of 240 days, which was not taken earlier.

9. Had the application of the petitioner allowed by the Presiding Officer, there would have been a total change in the stand taken by the petitioner, which would affect on the claim filed by the respondent / workman. No doubt, the bonafide mistake can be cured but mischief cannot be allowed under the law.

10. In view of above, I find no discrepancy in the order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the ld. Labour Court.

11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine. CM. No. 19342/2014 With the dismissal of the present petition, instant application has become infructuous and dismissed as such.

SURESH KAIT, J NOVEMBER 28, 2014 jg