Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑851 of 1979, decided on 25th April, 1982.

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Parties agreeing for remand for directions to trace out other case to find out which of two cases in hand dismissed by lower Court on account of compromise recorded on file of present case and in case it is found that compromise was arrived at in other case, appellant workman be afforded opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal and case be decided afresh‑Order passed accordingly.

Date of hearing : 22nd March, 1982.

The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that according to the respondent certain demands were raised and strike notice was given, but a settlement was arrived at according to which four demands of the respon dent union were settled and accepted by the appellant, but the settlement was not thereafter acted upon so an application under section 34 of I.R.O was made by the respondent union for the enforcement of the settlement on 8th July, 1978, Statements of the learned counsel for the appellant and Gene ral Secretary of the respondent union were recorded and the learned lower Court according to the said statements dismissed the petition. But after recording of the above‑mentioned order of the dismissal of the petition, an other order on the same date was recorded' adjourning the case to 26th July, 1978 on the request of the respondent for evidence. Thereafter the case was adjourned to various dates for one reason or the other, 25th October, 1979 the petition was accepted in the absence of the appellant without proceeding ex parte against it.

Learned counsel for the respondent says that compromise was effec ted between the parties in another case pending between the parties but the learned lower Court by mistake recorded order of dismissal in this file and that that is why on the same date the compromise order was recorded in and the case was adjourned to next date. He also says that the case remained pending and since nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant, nor any evidence was produced by the appellant and the case on 25th October 1979, was decided against it. Learned counsel for the appellant how ever stress his ignorance about the alleged compromise effected in another case and says that since this was dismissed. Counsel for the appellant left after having the order and nobody thereafter appeared on behalf of the appellant or any subsequent date. He therefore, challenges final order, dated 25th October, 1979. The order case referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent was summoned but it has not been traced. Register No.1 of the learned lower Court has been received in which the present case and another case between the same parties are entered.

It has been argued by the 'counsel for the parties to the effect that setting aside the impugned order dated 25th October, 1979, recorded by the lower Court be not set aside and the case be remanded to the learned lower Court with the direction that after tracing out the other case it be declar ed which of the two cases was dismissed on account of compromise recor ded on the file of the present case and that if it is found that the compro mise was arrived at in other case and not in the present case, the appellant be afforded opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal and the case be f decided afresh and if this case was dismissed on the basis of compromise then the other case if it has not so yet be decided without further loss of time.

I order accordingly and remand the case with the directions as agreed upon between the learned counsel for the patties. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

M. Y. M.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.