Delhi High Court Upholds Costs on Petitioner for Unwarranted Adjournments: Court Dismisses Petitioner’s Writ, Emphasizing that “Adjournments Are a Courtesy, Not a Right” in Industrial Dispute Case

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the Industrial Tribunal’s imposition of costs for seeking repeated adjournments. It upheld the Tribunal’s order, which imposed ₹20,000 as costs, split equally between the Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and the respondent’s witnesses. The High Court imposed additional costs of ₹20,000 on the petitioner for filing what it deemed a frivolous petition. It directed the petitioner to pay all costs within one week, warning of consequences for non-compliance.

Facts of the Case

1. The petitioner, representing a management entity, challenged an order of the Industrial Tribunal dated November 5, 2024.
2. The Tribunal imposed ₹20,000 in costs on the petitioner for repeatedly seeking adjournments in an industrial dispute pending since 2009, one of the oldest cases in the Tribunal.
3. On November 5, 2024, the Tribunal had granted a pass-over to the petitioner’s representative in the first call but declined a second pass-over request. The Tribunal conducted the chief examination of two witnesses and allowed the petitioner the opportunity for cross-examination. However, the petitioner declined to proceed and sought another adjournment.
4. Despite the Tribunal’s directions, the petitioner delayed further proceedings by filing an application to amend issues on November 8, 2024.

Issues Raised

1. Was the imposition of costs by the Industrial Tribunal justified under the circumstances?
2. Did the petitioner’s actions amount to an abuse of judicial process, delaying justice and frustrating the respondent?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Unjustified Costs: The petitioner contended that the costs imposed were unwarranted as they had only sought a pass-over, not an adjournment.
2. Tribunal Delays: The petitioner argued that previous delays in the case were due to judicial officers’ absence on certain hearing dates.
3. Procedural Justification: On November 8, 2024, the petitioner filed an application to amend issues, which they claimed was within their rights under the Industrial Disputes framework.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. The respondent highlighted the undue delays caused by the petitioner’s representatives through repeated adjournment requests.
2. They argued that these delays amounted to harassment of the respondent and witnesses, especially in a matter pending for over a decade.
3. The respondent supported the Tribunal’s decision to impose costs, emphasizing its role in deterring dilatory tactics.

Analysis of the Law

Judicial Precedents

1. Yashpal Jain vs. Sushila Devi & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1377
   • The Supreme Court emphasized that repeated adjournments should not delay the judicial process. The presiding officer must remain vigilant to avoid unwarranted delays.
   • The Court remarked that the “wheels of justice must turn without friction” and observed that leniency in granting adjournments undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
2. Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal & Ors., (2021) 12 SCC 612
   • Highlighted the adverse impact of adjournments on the justice delivery system, shaking the litigants’ faith in timely justice.
3. Blue Heavens Garments vs. M/s. Kids Collections, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1124
   • The Delhi High Court criticized unnecessary adjournments and noted that courts exist for dispute resolution, not as an employment avenue for advocates.

Key Legal Principles

• Adjournments as a Courtesy: The Court reiterated that adjournments and pass-overs are privileges, not rights, granted at the discretion of the court.
• Witness Harassment: The Industrial Tribunal was correct in compensating witnesses who were inconvenienced due to the petitioner’s refusal to proceed with the cross-examination.
• Timeliness and Efficiency: The judiciary must strike a balance between procedural fairness and efficient case management.

Precedent Analysis

The High Court underscored its reliance on precedents that repeatedly condemned dilatory tactics. It emphasized the judiciary’s duty to safeguard the integrity of the judicial process by curbing unwarranted delays. It noted that costs were not punitive but a necessary deterrent to prevent misuse of adjournments.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Conduct of the Petitioner: The Court observed that the petitioner’s representatives were represented by multiple advocates, yet none proceeded with the cross-examination, reflecting intentional delay.
2. Tribunal’s Approach: The Industrial Tribunal exercised judicial discretion by first granting a pass-over, then recording the witnesses’ chief examination, and finally imposing costs to mitigate the impact of wasted court time and witness inconvenience.
3. Frivolous Petition: The High Court found that the writ petition lacked merit and was filed to frustrate the Tribunal’s proceedings, further delaying justice for the respondent.

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal’s costs order and imposing an additional ₹20,000 in costs. It directed strict compliance within one week to ensure timely justice.

Implications

1. Judicial Efficiency: The judgment reinforces that the judiciary will not tolerate dilatory tactics and emphasizes the importance of efficient case management.
2. Accountability: Legal representatives and parties are reminded of their duty to respect judicial time and avoid frivolous petitions.
3. Witness Rights: The decision highlights the need to respect witnesses’ time and ensure their convenience in judicial processes.

Also Read – Bombay High Court: Election Petition Dismissed for Failing to Implead Necessary Parties; “Petitioner’s Failure to Implead All Contesting Candidates Rendered the Petition Defective and Subject to Dismissal Under Section 86(1) of the Act”