W.P.(C) 2557/2001 Page 1 of 4 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 12th May, 2011. + W.P.(C) 2557/2001 % SH. JANG BAHADUR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate. versus M/S THERMOPLASTIC SURGICAL & SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. CM No.6759/2011 (of the petitioner for early hearing). Allowed. The writ petition is taken for hearing today itself. W.P.(C) 2557/2001 Page 2 of 4 W.P.(C) 2557/2001. 1. For the reasons herein after appearing, even though none appears for the respondent employer but need is not felt to await or hear the respondent. 2. The petitioner workman impugns the order dated 1st March, 2001 of the Industrial Adjudicator allowing the application of the respondent employer for setting aside of the ex parte award dated 30th August, 1999 subject to payment of costs by the respondent employer to the petitioner workman of `5,000/-. 3. Notice of the petition was issued and on the application of the petitioner workman further proceedings before the Industrial Adjudicator stayed and remain stayed. 4. The application for setting aside of the ex parte award was made within 13 days of the ex parte award. Upon the application being opposed by the petitioner workman issues were framed thereon, evidence led and thereafter the application allowed. 5. It has been put to the counsel for the petitioner that even if the writ petition of the petitioner workman is to be allowed and the ex parte award W.P.(C) 2557/2001 Page 3 of 4 to be allowed to remain, opportunity will necessarily have to be granted to the respondent employer to challenge the same by way of writ petition in as much as the respondent employer has had no opportunity to challenge the award owing to the application for setting aside of the ex parte having been allowed. 6. Moreover, there are divergent opinions of the Supreme Court on the powers of the Industrial Adjudicator to so set aside the ex parte award. 7. In the circumstances, it is felt that no purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition alive. The petitioner workman by preferring the same has already delayed the matter by over ten years. 8. In the circumstances, while dismissing the writ petition and relegating the parties to the Industrial Adjudicator it is directed that the Industrial Adjudicator to now dispose of the proceedings within one year of the parties first appearing before the Industrial Adjudicator. 9. The parties to appear before the Industrial Adjudicator on 8th July, 2011. The counsel for the petitioner to inform the respondent employer and the counsel of the respondent employer of today’s order and the said date, to enable the respondent employer to appear before the Industrial W.P.(C) 2557/2001 Page 4 of 4 Adjudicator on that date. 10. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner workman to, along with a copy of this order, immediately approach the Industrial Adjudicator for issuance of notice to the respondent employer for 8th July, 2011. 11. The record of Industrial Adjudicator if received in this Court be returned immediately. No order as to costs. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY 12, 2011 pp