The Delhi High Court stated that adjournments and pass-overs are not guaranteed rights but are simply courtesies offered by the court.
The Delhi High Court ordered R B Seth Jessa Ram Hospital to pay Rs 20,000 for delaying legal proceedings. The court noted that adjournments and passovers are not guaranteed rights for lawyers but are simply courtesies from the court. The Writ Petition challenged a decision from the Industrial Tribunal that imposed the cost on the hospital’s management. Justice Girish Kathpalia emphasized that since witnesses were available, the Tribunal made a smart choice to proceed with their examination instead of delaying the case.
Advocate Vinod Kumar represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Fidel Sebastain represented the Respondent. The Petitioner argued that the order was not valid because they only requested a pass-over, making the cost unjust. The Petitioner also mentioned that they had filed for changes in the issues related to an industrial dispute that has been ongoing since 2009. The Bench pointed out that this case is among the oldest 20 cases in that court. It was noted that the management had three authorized representatives at the Tribunal, one of whom received a pass-over. When the case was called again, the other two representatives asked for another pass-over, which was denied. Despite this, they did not cross-examine the witnesses and instead requested an adjournment.
The Tribunal postponed the case and set costs at Rs. 20,000. Half of this amount is to be paid to the witnesses who were sent home without being cross-examined, while the other half is to be deposited with DLSA. The Tribunal noted that this situation is a clear example of one party trying to delay the process to frustrate the other side into giving up. Such behavior, especially in industrial disputes where there is a significant imbalance of resources, is unacceptable. Since the authorized representatives of the petitioner management insisted on an adjournment despite a pass-over, the Tribunal rightly imposed costs to be paid to the witnesses.
The Bench stated that the Industrial Tribunal acted correctly by first allowing a pass-over to ensure the witnesses were not left unexamined. It then provided the opportunity for cross-examination by the petitioner management’s representatives before adjourning the case with costs for the witnesses, who had wasted their time and would need to return. The Bench described the Petition as frivolous, aimed at unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings, even including a stay application. Consequently, the order was upheld, and the petition was dismissed, with an additional cost of Rs. 20,000 to be paid by the petitioner to DHCLSC within one week.
Cause Title: R B Seth Jessa Ram Hospital Bros v. R B Seth Jessa Ram Hospital Workmen Union [Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC: 9285]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Vinod Kumar
Respondent: Advocate Fidel Sebastain
