Delhi High Court Dismisses Visually Challenged Workman’s Plea to Restore Withdrawn Claim, Holds That Sympathy Cannot Override Legal Procedure

---

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by a visually challenged workman challenging the Labour Court’s order that refused to restore his withdrawn claim petition. The court emphasized that while the welfare of workmen is an important consideration, it cannot override legal procedures and principles.

The High Court noted that:

• The workman had not taken any legal action against his authorized representative, who had withdrawn the claim petition.
• The delay of nearly a year in filing the restoration application was unexplained.
• Since the petitioner had already initiated a parallel claim under the Employees Compensation Act, the Labour Court had rightly dismissed his application.

The court categorically held:
“The court cannot decide matters only on sympathy. There is nothing on record to explain why the petitioner remained silent for almost a year.”

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, along with the accompanying application.

---

Facts of the Case

1. The petitioner workman had filed a Statement of Claim under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, Delhi.
2. The respondent management filed an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC, arguing that the petitioner had already filed another claim before the Labour Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act for the same cause of action.
3. At this stage, the petitioner’s authorized representative, a labour union leader, sought permission to withdraw the claim.
4. The Labour Court dismissed the claim as withdrawn on March 11, 2019.
5. Nearly one year later, on February 1, 2020, the petitioner filed an application for restoration of his claim, arguing that:
   • His authorized representative had withdrawn the claim without his consent.
   • He was visually challenged, and his circumstances should be considered sympathetically.
6. The Labour Court rejected the application, ruling that:
   • It lacked jurisdiction to inquire into any alleged conspiracy related to the withdrawal.
   • The claim could not be restored in the absence of evidence of fraud or coercion.
7. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court.

---

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the Labour Court erred in dismissing the application for restoration of the withdrawn claim?
2. Whether the authorized representative withdrew the claim without the petitioner’s instructions?
3. Whether the petitioner’s visual impairment necessitated a different approach by the court?
4. Whether the delay of nearly a year in filing the restoration application affected the petitioner’s case?
5. Whether the existence of a parallel claim under the Employees Compensation Act justified the withdrawal of the claim?

---

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, represented by his counsel, advanced the following key arguments:

• Lack of Consent for Withdrawal:
  • The claim petition was withdrawn without his instructions by his authorized representative.
  • The withdrawal should be set aside so that he could proceed with his case before the Labour Court.
• Disability as a Special Consideration:
  • The petitioner is visually challenged, and the court should consider his unfortunate circumstances sympathetically.
• Delay Was Justified:
  • The one-year delay in filing the restoration application should not be held against him given his disability.
• Labour Court Should Have Conducted an Inquiry:
  • The Labour Court wrongly dismissed the application without investigating whether the withdrawal was obtained fraudulently.
• Welfare of Workmen Must Be Prioritized:
  • The judicial system should ensure fairness and justice for workmen, especially those with disabilities.

---

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent management was not represented in the present case. However, the following arguments were recorded in the previous proceedings:

• Authorized Representative Had Full Authority:
  • The petitioner’s authorized representative was a labour union leader who had validly withdrawn the claim.
  • The petitioner never challenged the authority of his representative at the time of withdrawal.
• Parallel Claim Before Labour Commissioner:
  • The petitioner had already initiated proceedings under the Employees Compensation Act before a competent authority.
  • The law does not permit forum shopping—i.e., filing the same claim before multiple forums.
• No Action Against the Representative:
  • If the withdrawal was truly without consent, the petitioner should have filed a complaint against his representative.
  • Since he did not, the claim that the withdrawal was unauthorized lacked credibility.
• Restoration Not Legally Permissible:
  • Once a claim is withdrawn without reserving the right to refile, it cannot be restored under the law.

---

Analysis of the Law

1. Applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act

• Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act allows an individual workman to file a dispute.
• Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act does not give the Labour Court jurisdiction to restore a withdrawn claim unless fraud or misrepresentation is established.

2. Withdrawal of Cases Under Civil Procedure Code (CPC)

• Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC states that a case once withdrawn voluntarily cannot be restored unless liberty to refile was specifically sought at the time of withdrawal.

3. Forum Shopping and Parallel Proceedings

• Filing multiple claims before different authorities for the same cause of action is not allowed.
• The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case once the petitioner chose to proceed before the Labour Commissioner.

4. Judicial Approach to Delay in Restoration Applications

• Courts do not entertain delayed applications unless convincing reasons are provided.
• Here, the one-year delay was unexplained.

---

Precedent Analysis

1. K.S. Saini v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2020)
   • Held that once a claim is withdrawn, it cannot be restored unless strong evidence of fraud is presented.
2. Workmen of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal (2003)
   • Stressed that Labour Courts should not permit restoration of withdrawn cases without strong justification.
3. Union of India v. Mohanlal Likumal (2018)
   • Held that parallel proceedings before different authorities should be discouraged.

---

Court’s Reasoning

1. Delay of One Year Was Unexplained
   • The petitioner waited for nearly a year before filing the restoration application.
   • There was no valid reason for this delay.
2. No Action Taken Against Authorized Representative
   • If the withdrawal was without consent, the petitioner should have filed legal action against his representative.
3. Labour Court’s Lack of Jurisdiction
   • The Labour Court rightly refused to inquire into conspiracy allegations, as it lacked jurisdiction.
4. Sympathy Cannot Override Legal Principles
   • While courts must consider workmen’s welfare, they cannot disregard established legal principles.

---

Conclusion

• The petition was dismissed as meritless.
• The court held that the Labour Court acted correctly in dismissing the restoration application.
• The accompanying application was also dismissed.

---

Implications

• Workmen must be cautious in choosing legal remedies and should not file parallel claims.
• Once a claim is withdrawn, restoration is difficult unless fraud is clearly proven.
• Authorized representatives must act transparently, and workmen should monitor their legal proceedings closely.
• The ruling reinforces that sympathy cannot override the law, even in cases involving disabled individuals.

This judgment clarifies the legal position on withdrawn claims and parallel proceedings, ensuring judicial discipline in labour disputes.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Dismisses Review Petition by Unaided Minority Institution: “AICTE Pay Scale Regulations Are Binding; Financial Hardship No Justification for Denying Assistant Professors’ Salaries Under VI and VII Pay Commissions”