Industrial Disputes Act Is Beneficial Legislation; Strict Timelines Under Commercial Courts Act Or CPC Ought Not To Apply: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee partially upheld the order of an Industrial Tribunal to allow a Worklady to submit additional documents along with her affidavit of evidence. The bench held that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a beneficial legislation where the strict timelines under the Commercial Courts Act or the CPC ought not to be applied.

Brief Facts:

The matter pertained to a Single Judge order of the Delhi High Court (“High Court”) which stayed the operation of an order passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the Management's objections to the Worklady's submission of additional documents and imposed a cost on the Management. The Single Judge stayed the entire order of the Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved, the Worklady approached the High Court to challenge the decision of the Single Judge. The Worklady contended that despite no prayer for interim relief being made before the Court by the Management, the Single Judge proceeded to stay the impugned order. This order, she argued, would prevent her from relying on additional documents filed with her affidavit in evidence. The Worklady, who has been pursuing her claim before the Tribunal for over ten years, argued that grave prejudice will result due to the order passed by the Single Judge.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court noted that the Tribunal dismissed the Management's objections to the Worklady's additional document filings, while simultaneously levying a Rs. 10,000/- cost on the Management. This cost imposition prompted the Management to contest the order via a writ petition. The Management argued that the Worklady's tardy submission of documents, without adequate explanation or permission from the Tribunal, warranted their objection and argued that the imposition of costs was unwarranted. While the High Court was inclined to agree with this contention regarding the inappropriateness of cost imposition, it concurred with the Tribunal's decision allowing the Worklady to submit additional documents with her affidavit. Taking into account that the ID Act is beneficial legislation where the strict timelines under the Commercial Courts Act or the CPC ought not to be applied, the High Court held that the Tribunal correctly held that there was no bar to the Worklady filing these additional documents.

Therefore, the High Court held that the Single Judge erred in staying the entire order. Consequently, it overturned the directive to stay the order issued by the Single Judge and modified the order of the Tribunal to set aside the imposition of cost on the Respondent.

Case Title: Remy Israni vs R. B. Seth Jessa Ram Hospital And Bros

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 535

Case Number: LPA 314/2024

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr.Fidel Sebastian & Mr.Rishi Nandy, Advs.

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms.Deepa Sharma, Adv.

Click Here To Read/Download Order