Case Name: Remy Israni v. R.B. Sethi Jessa Ram Hospital and Bros
Case No.: LPA 314/2024
Dated: April 23, 2024
Quorum: Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case’s circumstances are such that an application that the appellant made in an attempt to add more papers to the record. The goal of this appeal, which is being filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, is to challenge the ruling made by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 5005/2024 on April 5, 2024.
According to the contested ruling, the learned Single Judge has stayed the implementation of the aforementioned order dated 14.02.2024 while providing notice in the respondents’ writ suit contesting the order dated 14.02.2024 issued by the learned Industrial Tribunal (Tribunal).
Due to the specifics of the case, the appellant’s attempt to add new papers to the record was made through an application. This appeal is being brought in accordance with Clause X of the Letters Patent with the intention of contesting the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in an earlier matter.
The challenged ruling states that the learned Single Judge has given notice in the respondents’ writ petition opposing the order issued by the learned Industrial Tribunal, and has stopped the implementation of the aforementioned order dated February 14.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:
The learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned Single Judge has stayed the contested order notwithstanding the fact that the respondents did not request any temporary relief before the Court. The appellant will thus be unable to introduce into evidence any further papers that were filed with her affidavit.
The appellant, who has been pursuing her claim before the learned Tribunal for over ten years, will suffer grave prejudice due to the order made by the learned Single Judge. As a result, the pending proceedings before the learned Tribunal will essentially finish.
The appellant’s counsel further contends that the learned single judge stayed the disputed decision despite the fact that the respondents did not seek temporary relief from the court. As a result, the appellant will be unable to present any additional documents filed with her affidavit as evidence.
The appellant, who has been litigating her claim before the learned Tribunal for more than ten years, will suffer significant prejudice as a result of the learned Single Judge’s order. As a result, the pending processes before the learned Tribunal will be practically completed.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
The learned counsel representing the respondents acknowledges receipt of the notification and argues that the learned Tribunal erred significantly in imposing costs on the respondents for legitimately objecting to the appellant’s early filing of papers. She urges the appeal to be rejected on the grounds that the learned Single Judge was right to stay the learned Tribunal’s order.
The respondents contend that it was improper for the learned Tribunal to charge them fees for their legitimate concerns regarding the appellant’s delayed filing of papers. The stay order would effectively put an end to the ongoing proceedings before the learned Tribunal.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
We may start by noting the pertinent excerpts of the order issued by the learned Tribunal on February 14, 2024, which order was challenged before the learned Single Judge, after taking into account the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and reviewing the record.
The court further stated that after reviewing the aforementioned order, it is clear that the learned Tribunal assessed a cost of Rs. 10,000/-to the respondents in response to their rejection of the appellant’s request for additional documents to be filed with her affidavit of evidence. This appears to have forced the respondents to file a writ petition in order to challenge the original order.
The court stated that although they were inclined to concur with her that this was not a matter that should be subject to costs, they believed the learned Tribunal was right when it concluded that the appellant was entitled to submit more papers along with her affidavit as evidence. We believe that the learned tribunal correctly held that the appellant had no obstacle to filing these additional documents because the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was a helpful piece of legislation that did not apply the strict timeliness requirements under the Commercial Courts Act or the CPC.
The court declared that, given the previously mentioned instructions, they believed the writ petition to be infructuous in and of itself. As a result, they allow either party to freely file a suitable application with the learned Single Judge to request that it be handled in accordance with this order.
In the end, it was decided that the appeal and the pending application were handled in the manner mentioned above, with a request made to the knowledgeable Industrial Tribunal to continue deciding the appellant’s outstanding claim in accordance with the law.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora.
