9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and sought adjournment. This is a classic case of efforts done by one of the litigants to protract the proceedings with the object of frustrating the other side so that the other side gives up. Such a conduct, especially in the industrial disputes, which involve extreme disparity of resources available to the rival litigants has to be deprecated. The petitioner management, despite facing such costs, again tried to derail the proceedings by seeking amendment of issues on 08.11.2024 in the dispute pending since the year 2009. That speaks volumes of their intention. It has been repeatedly observed and held that adjournments and pass-overs are not a matter of right of the counsel but only a courtesy extended by the Court. Since the witnesses were present, instead of adjourning the matter, the learned Tribunal wisely granted a pass-over and examined them in chief - the learned Industrial Tribunal adopted a perfectly justified approach by first granting pass-over so that the witnesses would not go unexamined and thereafter offered the witnesses for cross examination by the authorized representatives of the petitioner management and finally adjourning the matter with costs to be paid to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mine WW4 and WW-5 is given to Sh. Sparsh Jhanb, Ld. AR for management appearing through VC at this stage. At this stage, adjournment sought by Sh. Sh. Sparsh Jhanb, Ld. AR for management. As per CPC, busyness of a counsel in some other Court is no ground for adjournment. Today itself three ARs for management have appeared through VC. There is no reason why one of them could not appear before . this Court. The present matter is one of the oldest 20 matters pending in my court regarding which there are directions from the Hon'ble High Court for early disposal. Keeping in view the conduct of the management in the present case, no ground for adjournment is made of. However, in the interest of justice, adjournment is allowed subject to a cost of Rs. 20,000/- with the further condition that the management shall have only one opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, subject also to the availability of the witnesses. Half of the cost shall be deposited with DLSA and the remaining shall be paid to both the witnesses equally. Put up for showing deposit of cost, payment of cost and cross-examination of WW-4 and WW-5 and RWE on 07.11.2024. At this stage, date is change ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not be allowed to dilute the judicial processes by delaying the said process by in any manner whatsoever. As held by this Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal AIR (1977) 4 SCC 467 the answer to an irresponsible suit or litigation would be a vigilant judge. This analogy requires to be stretched in the instant case and to all the pending matters by necessarily holding that every stakeholder in the process of dispensation of justice is required to act swiftly, diligently, without giving scope for any delay in dispensation of justice. Thus, an onerous responsibility rests on the shoulders of the presiding officer of every court, who should be cautious and vigilant against such indolent acts and persons who attempt to thwart quick dispensation of justice. A response is expected from all parties involved, with a special emphasis on the presiding officer. The presiding officer must exercise due diligence to ensure that proceedings are conducted efficiently and without unnecessary delays." 5. In the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal & Ors., (2021) 12 SCC 612, the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed concern thus: "9. Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for examination of witnesses, witnesses come to the court at 10 a.m. It is obligatory on counsel for the parties to make themselves available for examination/cross-examination of witnesses. The courts do not exist as an employment source for legal professionals alone. The existence of courts is justified only for dispute resolution between the parties in a reasonable time. Any effort by advocate of a party or by a party to drag the case and to harass the witnesses by not cross-examining and seeking adjournments again and again must be deprecated and curbed. It is not the prerogative of the advocate that he will cross-examine the witness when he has time. Counsel is supposed to manage his diary in such a manner that when there is a case for examination/cross-examination of the witnesses, he is there in the court for cross-examination, if not in the morning at 10 a.m. then around 11 a.m. when the miscellaneous matters are over. The court cannot keep on postponing evidence cases. If evidence cases are passed over time and again, ultimate result is that evidence cannot be recorded because of paucity of working time of that day. This result into harassment of the witnesses as they had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over, as mentioned above, the plea is totally contrary to record. The pass-over request was allowed by the Tribunal as the witnesses of the respondent workmen were present. 10. It has been repeatedly observed and held that adjournments and pass-overs are not a matter of right of the counsel but only a courtesy extended by the Court. Since the witnesses were present, instead of adjourning the matter, the learned Tribunal wisely granted a pass-over and examined them in chief. Since despite pass-over, the authorized representatives of the petitioner management chose to insist for adjournment, the Tribunal justifiably imposed costs, to be paid to the witnesses. If the counsel for petitioner management could not maintain his diary, there was no fault of the witnesses who were being called again for their cross examination. Not only this, there is no explanation as to why out of three authorized representatives, the two who were present before the learned Tribunal chose not to cross examine the witnesses. It was a sheer harassment of the witnesses. 11. In my view, the learned Industrial Tribunal adopted a perfectly justified approach by first granting pass-over so that the witnesses wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
