Some queries related to labour cases
skg
(Querist) 12 October 2009
This query is : Resolved
Dear legal experts,
Please solve my following queries :
1)what is the maximum time limit which a presiding officer of a labour court can give a party having received a claim from other party for filing his written statement?
2)Can an opposite party file an application of objection against the decision of presiding judge who is giving dates after date on repeated requests of other party on each hearing to file his ws and in this way six months have passed now from first hearing date?
3)Please provide the exact procedures which are followed by labour courts in illegal termination cases/recovery of accumulated dues and the maximum duration defined in law for speedy trials in these termination cases so that the workman who is already in hardship get justice quickly without waiting for long lengthy trial periods of 6 to 8 years?
4)Is there a way in our judicial system where workman cases in labour court can be decided in 1 to 2 years only?
5)If a lawyer fighting a workman's labour case never reached in any hearing from the start of his case and each of the 5 hearing were only attended by the workman, can the workman change this lawyer and ask for the refund of payment he has given to this lawyer?What procedure he has to follow to do so? Whether he can launch a complaint against this lawyer by citing the example that this lawyer never attended a single hearing?
6)Can a workman fight his labour case without hiring a lawyer?
rgds
skg
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 12 October 2009
1. Though Civil Procedure Code is followed in Labour Courts vide which maximum period for filing the written statement is 90 days from the date of the notice of the case but this limit is directory and not mandatory,however, court is bound to mention special reasons providing the respondent adjournment for this purpose beyond 90 days.
2. Opposite party means petitioner can file an application objecting to adjourn the case for filing the WS beyond 90 days of notice praying therein to struck off the defense of the respondent.
3. No specific procedure is followed in such cases and all cases therein are treated generally on same footing. Similar procedure is adopted.
4. In the present set-up, either settle the matter in Lok Adalat or go on litigating as there is no other effective alternate to deal with such matters resulting its disposal within a period of 1-2 years.
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 13 October 2009
no specific procedure is followed in labour cases.
I do not agree with sri raj becaue 90 days to file ws is not applicable to labour cases, because these are all summary proceedings, even it is decided in mvc cases that 90 days to file ws is not applicable. this 90 days period is applicable to suit only.
legislatures made law but high courts pass different orders.
Sachin Bhatia
(Expert) 13 October 2009
agree with Mr. Rajeev, there is no specific procedure followed in labour courts.
H. S. Thukral
(Expert) 16 October 2009
There is definitely a procedure prescribed for Industrial Courts.Kindly refer to section 10B of Industrial Disputes (Central ) Rules. It is a matter of concern that despite the supreme court rulings that the Industrial adjudication should be carried out expediously, the adjudication of industrial disputes are taking fairly long time. Section 10 (2A)provides that the appropriate government in some cases can prescribed the time during which the Award is to be made out by the Industrial Court but even in such cases it is not adhered to.
My suggestion is that if the opposite party seeks adjournment do record your objection to it. Meanwhile, file an application for interim relief. Go through judgment of Delhi High Court in Hongkong Shangai Banking corp. where interim releif was granted.
You can fight your own case and I, with a background of leading a trade union, learnt it in hardway that it is better to represent yourself instead of a lawyer. Only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches. Otherewise also section 36 of Industrial Disputes Act wncourages self representations. A party who does not engage a lawyer can object to engagement of lawyer by opposite party.
