Full Text
Translation output
-- $-44&46.
I
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 1337/2013 & C.M. Nos.2539-41/2013
MIS AIR STATE COURIER PVT LTD..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate
I
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 1337/2013 & C.M. Nos.2539-41/2013
MIS AIR STATE COURIER PVT LTD..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate
VERSUS
S.M.GUDDU
Through:
Through:
W.P.(C) 1319/2013 & C.M. Nos.2505-07/2013
MIS AIR STATE COURIERPVT LTD..... Respondent ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate
MIS AIR STATE COURIERPVT LTD..... Respondent ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate
VERSUS
NAVKANTJHA
Through:
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
27~02.2013 ..... Respondent The petitioner has preferred these writ petitions to assail the order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the Lab0ur Court imposing costs on the
2013:DHC:7453 petitioner employer while granting adjournment of the case on the said date.
The order sheet of 12.10.2012 reveals that after the rejoinder was filed, the parties proceeded with their arguments on the aspect of framing of issues. It appears that after part arguments were heard, the AR of the petitioner management sought an adjournment on the ground that the main ARM is busy in the Saket court. Consequently, the costs ofRs.S,OOO/- were imposed while granting adjournment.·
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that costs have been imposed in six matters totalling to Rs.30,000/-. He further submits that the petitioner had moved an application for waiver of costs, which has also been rejected on 09.01.2013.
I find no merit in this petition. Once the arguments had proceeded on the aspect of framing of issues, the seeking of adjournment on any ground much less on the .ground that the main ARM is busy in another court is not justified. It appears that the time ofthe Labour Court was wasted on hearing part arguments, whereafter the proceedings were adjourned on account of the petitioner. The imposition of costs in each case is different since the workman is also different. It is not that the costs are going to the same pocket. Moreover, th~ order dated 12.10.2012 merged in the subsequent order on 09.01.2013 whereby the petitioners application to seek waiver of costs was dismissed. However, the subsequent order has not even been assailed before this Court.
Last not but the least, this court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not normally interfere with an order imposing costs as the said order is passed by the Labour Court in its discretion so as to regulate the proceedings before it and to keep the parties within the bounds of discipline.
The purpose is also to compensate the party who suffers on account of adjournment.
I find no merit in these petitions. Dismissed.
FEBRUARY 27, 2013 sr VIPIN SANGHI, J
27~02.2013 ..... Respondent The petitioner has preferred these writ petitions to assail the order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the Lab0ur Court imposing costs on the
2013:DHC:7453 petitioner employer while granting adjournment of the case on the said date.
The order sheet of 12.10.2012 reveals that after the rejoinder was filed, the parties proceeded with their arguments on the aspect of framing of issues. It appears that after part arguments were heard, the AR of the petitioner management sought an adjournment on the ground that the main ARM is busy in the Saket court. Consequently, the costs ofRs.S,OOO/- were imposed while granting adjournment.·
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that costs have been imposed in six matters totalling to Rs.30,000/-. He further submits that the petitioner had moved an application for waiver of costs, which has also been rejected on 09.01.2013.
I find no merit in this petition. Once the arguments had proceeded on the aspect of framing of issues, the seeking of adjournment on any ground much less on the .ground that the main ARM is busy in another court is not justified. It appears that the time ofthe Labour Court was wasted on hearing part arguments, whereafter the proceedings were adjourned on account of the petitioner. The imposition of costs in each case is different since the workman is also different. It is not that the costs are going to the same pocket. Moreover, th~ order dated 12.10.2012 merged in the subsequent order on 09.01.2013 whereby the petitioners application to seek waiver of costs was dismissed. However, the subsequent order has not even been assailed before this Court.
Last not but the least, this court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not normally interfere with an order imposing costs as the said order is passed by the Labour Court in its discretion so as to regulate the proceedings before it and to keep the parties within the bounds of discipline.
The purpose is also to compensate the party who suffers on account of adjournment.
I find no merit in these petitions. Dismissed.
FEBRUARY 27, 2013 sr VIPIN SANGHI, J
JUDGMENT