2024 (11) TMI 1429 - HC - Indian Laws

Management penalized for seeking repeated adjournments to delay industrial dispute proceedings, additional costs imposed

RB SETH JESSA RAM HOSPITAL BROS Versus RB SETH JESSA RAM HOSPITAL WORKMEN UNION

Delhi HC upheld Industrial Tribunal's decision to impose costs on petitioner management for seeking repeated adjournments in a 2009 industrial dispute. ... Imposition of costs on the petitioner management for seeking adjournments - refusal to grant further pass-overs or adjournments - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner management is being represented by three authorized representatives before the Industrial Tribunal, out of whom one appeared before the Tribunal on 05.11.2024 in the first call and sought a pass-over, which was granted by the Tribunal. Thereafter in second call, two other authorized representatives joined the hearing through video conferencing and sought yet another pass-over on the ground that another matter of theirs was listed before this Court. The learned Tribunal found it not possible to grant another pass-over, so declined the request and after recording the chief examination of two witnesses, offered the witnesses to both representatives of the petitioner management for cross examination. Despite that, those two authorized representatives refused to cross examine the witnesses 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 the witnesses, who had wasted their day and were to come again. Conclusion - i) Adjournments and pass-overs are not a matter of right of the counsel but only a courtesy extended by the Court. ii) Judicial efficiency and the timely resolution of disputes take precedence over accommodating repeated adjournment requests, especially in cases with significant delays. The impugned order is upheld and the petition is dismissed with further costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited by petitioner with DHCLSC within one week. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment are: Whether the Industrial Tribunal's imposition of costs on the petitioner management for seeking adjournments was justified. Whether the Tribunal's refusal to grant further pass-overs or adjournments was consistent with legal principles and precedents. Whether the petitioner's actions constituted an attempt to unduly delay the judicial process.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Justification of Costs Imposed by the TribunalRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal's decision to impose costs was guided by principles discouraging unnecessary adjournments, as emphasized in precedents such as Yashpal Jain vs. Sushila Devi & Ors. and Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal & Ors. These cases highlight the judiciary's stance against dilatory tactics that hinder timely justice.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the Industrial Tribunal had already accommodated the petitioner management by granting a pass-over. The subsequent refusal to grant further adjournments was based on the Tribunal's assessment that the petitioner's representatives were using adjournments to delay proceedings.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal observed that three authorized representatives of the petitioner were present, yet none proceeded with cross-examination, indicating a lack of genuine intent to advance the proceedings.Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that adjournments are not a right but a courtesy, and found that the Tribunal acted within its discretion to ensure efficient case management.Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's argument that costs were unjustified because only a pass-over was sought was dismissed as contrary to the record, which showed a pattern of delay tactics.Conclusions: The imposition of costs was upheld as a justified measure to prevent further delay and to compensate the witnesses for their inconvenience.2. Refusal to Grant Further Pass-overs or AdjournmentsRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Court referred to Blue Heavens Garments vs. M/s. Kids Collections, which underscores the obligation of legal counsel to manage their schedules efficiently to avoid unnecessary adjournments.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal's decision to decline further pass-overs was based on the need to adhere to judicial efficiency and prevent harassment of witnesses, who were present and ready for examination.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that despite the presence of multiple representatives, none took the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, which was interpreted as an attempt to delay the proceedings.Application of law to facts: The Court found that the Tribunal's actions were consistent with the legal principle that adjournments should not be granted routinely or mechanically.Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's claim that the Tribunal should have considered the absence of judicial officers on previous dates was dismissed, as the focus was on the conduct on the specific date in question.Conclusions: The refusal to grant further pass-overs was deemed appropriate, given the circumstances and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Court emphasized, 'Adjournments and pass-overs are not a matter of right of the counsel but only a courtesy extended by the Court.'Core principles established: The judgment reinforced the principle that judicial efficiency and the timely resolution of disputes take precedence over accommodating repeated adjournment requests, especially in cases with significant delays.Final determinations on each issue: The Court upheld the Tribunal's order, dismissed the petition as frivolous, and imposed additional costs on the petitioner for attempting to further delay the proceedings.