Lpa

V.N.K. MENON (Querist) 23 February 2014 This query is : Resolved
BRIEF DESCRIPTION
=================
PROCEEDINGS IN LABOUR COURT: (sequentially)
------------------------------------------

= After cross-examining the w/man the employer vanished and did not subject himself for examination.

= In the next hearing none-appeared for management and was declared ex-parte by the court.

= In the next hearing my advocate as well as other party’s did not appear.

= When I came to know about it, restoration application was filed and it was granted whereas other party vanished / absconded.

= The court gave 14 opportunities /hearings, but Management neither appeared nor applied for restoration.

= Reasoned Award was passed finally after 1 ½ years by Labour court ANSWERING ALL THE ISSUES.

=When notice of implementation was received from the Labour Dept. Govt. of NCT Delhi, the Management woke up and submitted application to Labour Court for review of award. Labour Court rightly rejected it by a reasoned order.

IN THE HIGH COURT
=================
YEAR 2006
--------------
= Employer filed WPC invoking Art. 226/227 on the plea that they were not given notice on restoration application of workman by labour court.

= Main WPC went through adjournment-after-adjournment and NO ARGUMENT TOOK place except 17-B application.

= W/man filed for interim relief u/s 17-B of ID Act which was rejected by Single Bench.

YEAR 2009
-------------

=W/man filed LPA. Division bench passed CONSENTED ORDER granting 17-B. Accordingly Employer wanted to take work from w/man and reinstated him in 2009 in the unit of employer at remote place and an advocate my cousin was looking after my interest.

YEAR 2012
-------------
= When I was given a forced retirement in the year 2012 on attainment of 60 years. It was a forced retirement in the sense that I was discriminated against my (about 20) contemporaries/ colleagues and also in the absence of a retirement clause in service rules / appointment order.

(1) When I was given a forced retirement in 2012 which was RECEIVED UNDER PROTEST, I came to Delhi and inspected the records in the court and found that I was not represented properly.

CRUX OF THE MATTER
-------------------
= I FILED A MOTION TO DISMISSAL OF WPC ON THE GROUND THAT THE W/P IS CLOAK OF AN APPEAL IN DISGUISE, RELYING ON APEX COUR JUDGMENTS, AS THE MANAGEMENT DID NOT USE THE REMEDY AVAILABLE FOR RESTORATION THOUGH 14 OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN BY LABOUR COURT. THIS WAS LISTED FOR HEARING AFTER SAY ABOUT 5 MONTHS.

=In view of the long gap, I, the w/man filed APPLICATION for interim relief during pendency of WPC under 17-B as per the will of statute .

= MOTION TO DISMISS WAS IN ABEYANCE DUE TO 17-B application.

= Therefore, I filed application for early hearing of WPC.

Ground/ cogent reasons (in short):
---------------------------------
(a)Senior citizen; sickness ; (b) no livelihood (c) disablement inflicted during the course of employment : (1) aggravation of breathing problem & (2) hearing problem because of posting at high altitude as I was discriminated from other employees in the matter of winter equipments to withstand severe cold at the place of posting situated at high altitude of 4000 ft. Also No bonafide retirement benefits given which cannot be attached by any court of law as it is protected by Sec.60(1)(g) CPC and ratified by Apex Court in several cases.

**LPA early hearing was disposed off by Div. Bench giving opportunity to approach the Single Bench again with the prayer.

** Accordingly approached Single Bench – judge recused.

** Next hearing before another judge “for admission”: CAUSE LIST (the two applications):

(i) Application in re. regard to MOTON TO DISMISS WPC

(ii) Application for early hearing.

= Judge commented upon early hearing ONLY and taking the version of Management as gospel truth. The truth is that, It is very unfortunate that I got no opportunity to speak at par with the advocates of opposite party. Some time back there was a proposal to video recording all the proceedings but was not implemented for unknown reasons. REALLY TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. It is pertinent to say point out that Opposite party is believed to have incontrovertible tainted course and conduct including guilty of graft charges. I do not want to elaborate further in the public forum.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES I WANT TO FILE LPA and WHAT STAND THE EXPERTS RECOMMEND TO TAKE IN LPA, SO THAT IF IT IS DISMISSED I CAN FILE SLP.

CONSIDERED GUIDANCE / OPINION IS SOUGHT FROM Ld. L/C experts, please. Thanks and regards.

Follow Query

Report Abuse