BHARAT HEAVY ELELCTRICALS LTD Vs. P O LABOUR COURT
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BHARAT HEAVY ELELCTRICALS LTD
P O LABOUR COURT
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The aforesaid application being CM 3498/2005 has been filed by the
petitioner on 10th March, 2005 to bring on record the legal heirs of the
respondent No.3, who had expired on 12th September, 2000.
(2.) Very briefly, the relevant facts for disposing of the application are
that the writ petition was filed on 7th February, 2001, assailing an award dated
9th June, 2000 passed by the Labour Court by answering the reference against the
petitioner/management. Notice was issued in the writ petition for 3rd
September, 2001. On 3rd September, 2001, appearance was entered by one Mr.
S.K. Pathak, Advocate who sought time to file reply. A perusal of the said
order does not indicate as to whether the said counsel entered appearance for
the respondent No.2 alone, or for all the respondents. Thereafter, the matter
was renotified for 28th November, 2001 and again the presence of the Advocate
was recorded for all the respondents. After that, pleadings were completed in
(3.) It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that on 11.10.2004, in
the course of arguments, it was observed that it was not clear from the records
of the case as to whether the respondent No.3, M/s. Ideal Caretakers had been
served or not and in order to avoid any complication at a subsequent stage,
fresh notice was directed to be issued to the respondent No.3 by Regd. AD post,
ordinary process and dasti for 2nd November, 2004 Thereafter, substituted
service was effected on the said respondent by publication, and on 8.2.2005, an
advocate entered appearance on behalf of the son of the proprietor of the
respondent No.3 and stated that the sole proprietor of the said firm, Shri S.N.
Banga expired on 12th September, 2000 even before filing of the present writ
petition. The Court directed that an affidavit to the said effect be filed.
Accordingly, an affidavit dated 9th March, 2005 was filed by the son of the
deceased/ proprietor of the respondent No.3 stating inter alia that his father
had expired on 12th September, 2000. Immediately thereafter, the present
application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for impleadment of the son of
the deceased/sole proprietor of the respondent No.3 as his legal heir. It was
further explained that the factum of the death of the respondent No.3 came to
the knowledge of the petitioner only after an advocate entered appearance on
behalf of the son of the deceased, in the Court on 8th February, 2005.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.