Litigant should not suffer for counsel's negligence; labour court award set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

A litigant who had duly engaged counsel and acted promptly was held not to suffer prejudice merely because of the advocate's negligence, where the record showed that the failure to file the written statement and comply with costs was not attributable to the litigant. The Delhi HC treated the petitioner as an innocent party denied an effective defence and held that a fair opportunity to contest the matter on merits was required. The labour court award was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication de novo after notice to all parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the labour court award deserved to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on the ground that the petitioner was deprived of effective defence because of the negligence and inaction of its counsel.

Analysis: The petitioner had engaged counsel, paid fees, and issued instructions, yet the written statement was not filed, costs were not complied with, and the defence was struck off. The record showed repeated lapses on the part of counsel and prompt steps by the petitioner after learning of the adverse award, including efforts to obtain the record and complaint to the Bar Council. In such circumstances, the petitioner was treated as an innocent litigant who should not suffer for the default of its advocate and was found entitled to a fair opportunity to defend the case on merits.

Conclusion: The award was set aside and the matter was remanded to the labour court for fresh decision after issuing notice to all parties and proceeding de novo.

Ratio Decidendi: A litigant who has duly engaged counsel and acted diligently should not be denied a hearing or made to suffer prejudice solely because of the counsel's negligence, where the record shows that the default was not attributable to the litigant.

---