Not Providing Virtual Hearing Facility To Party Contrary To The Spirit Of Holding Hearings During Pandemic: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the act of the Controlling Authority under Payment Of Gratuity Act of not providing virtual hearing facility to the party concerned is contrary to the spirit of holding hearings during pandemic.

Justice Pratibha M Singh also observed that it is the duty of such Authority to either make available the virtual link to the party or inform it that the said request is not acceded to, in order to enable the party to make alternate arrangements.

The Court was dealing with petition challenging the order passed by the Controlling Authority and the recovery certificate issued against Sharad Das and Associates. Vide the impugned order, a sum of Rs. 8,04,808 was awarded along with 10% simple interest as gratuity amount to the Workman.

In both the rounds of Litigation between the parties, it was found that the petitioner Management was proceeded against ex parte and the order was passed by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

The petitioner told the Court that an email was written by it to the Authority wherein reasons for not appearing physically were stated and a link was sought for joining for a virtual hearing.

However, despite the said email, the Authority proceeded against the petitioner ex parte.

It was argued by the petitioner that it's lawyer or representative ought to have been permitted to join virtually and physical appearance could not have been mandated by the Authority.

"In any event, not providing a facility to join virtually would be contrary to the spirit of holding hearings during the current pandemic. The Authority ought to make it feasible for advocates and representatives to appear virtually before them," the Court observed.

Further observing that the impugned order was not sustainable, the Court added:

"However, considering the fact that this is the second time the Management was proceeded against ex parte, subject to costs of Rs. 50,000/-being awarded to the Workman, the impugned order is set aside. In view thereof, the recovery certificate dated 10th March 2021 shall not be given effect to."

The Court further directed the Controlling Authority to hear both the parties after taking the written statement filed by the Petitioner into consideration and to adjudicate the dispute within three months.

"The parties are directed to appear before the Controlling Authority on 13th September, 2021. The costs imposed, shall be paid on or before the said date by the Management to the Workman," the Court said.

Title: SHARAT DAS AND ASSOCIATES v. RAMESHWAR SINGH & ORS

Click Here To Read Order