TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xed for that post by the appropriate government from time to time. 2. The respondent workman was working with the petitioner management as an operator. The petitioner vide letter dated 11.08.2004 terminated/ retrenched the respondent workman on the ground that his performance and conduct was not satisfactory. A cheque of Rs.7,158/- dated 10.08.2004 was also enclosed with the aforesaid letter by the petitioner towards full and final settlement of the accounts with the respondent workman which was not accepted by the respondent workman. Thus a dispute arose between the respondent workman and the petitioner regarding his service conditions. On failure of the conciliation proceedings, the Secretary (Labour) Government of NCT of Delhi vide or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner has taken serious objections to the lackadaisical attitude of its advocate. 4. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the management had engaged one Mr. Pranav Kanti, Advocate, 457, Civil Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to represent it before the Labour Court in this matter. It is the petitioner's case that Mr. Pranav Kanti, Advocate failed to effectively pursue these matters and was negligent. My attention has been drawn to the copies of the order sheets which, inter alia, state that on 19.10.2005 because the written statement was not filed, a cost of Rs.100/- was imposed. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 4.01.2006 and on 4.01.2006 also, since nothing was done and the previous costs were not paid, another oppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom Mr. Pranav Kanti. A letter dated 19.04.2007 was sent by the petitioner to Mr. Kanti, wherein the petitioner has stated that its interest has been severely affected as a result of the cases entrusted to him being decided against the petitioner. It requested Mr. Pranav Kanti that all the remaining records and documents connected with the petitioner be immediately sent to the petitioner so that it could engage another counsel and take appropriate remedial measures. 6. In the same context, the petitioner wrote another letter to Mr. Kanti on 15.05.2007 giving details of the cases which were being handled by Mr. Kanti on its behalf. In that letter, the petitioner has also remonstrated with Mr. Kanti that its matters had been grossly misman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehalf. Unfortunately despite all this, counsel engaged by it acted in the most careless and negligent manner. He says that once the petitioner became aware of the negligence of the counsel appointed by it, it immediately tried to take remedial steps. It has also gone to the extent of sending intimation about the conduct of counsel to the Bar Council of India for taking necessary steps as per law. Counsel for the petitioner states that under the circumstances, as the interest of the petitioner management has suffered for no fault and for reasons beyond its control, solely attributable to the negligence of its advocate, the petitioner should be given liberty to defend the case on merits before the Labour Court. 9. The counsel for the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the party who having done everything in his power expected of him would suffer because of the default of his advocate. If we reject this appeal, as Mr A.K. Sanghi invited us to do, the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented. The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. Maybe that the learned Advocate absented himself deliberately or intentionally. We have no material for ascertaining that aspect of the matter. We say nothing more on that aspect of the matter. However, we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering inj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ors 2001 (3) ALT 285 remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration for the reasons that the litigant should not suffer for the lapse on the part of the counsel, and should be given an opportunity of being heard. 13. To my mind, this is also a case where the petitioner appears to have been a victim of the inaction, negligence and misdemeanor of its counsel, who has conducted himself in a very unprofessional manner in this case. The conduct of the counsel is also clear from the observations made by the Learned Labour Court in its orders. Furthermore, the fact remains that even though the award against the petitioner was passed in the presence of its counsel, he did not inform his client, i.e. the petitioner, about this. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
