Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: (18) LCA 4224/24
KHUSHI RAM Vs. M/S INDIA YAMAHA MOTORS PVT
LTD
Date:16.02.2026
Present: Sh. Yogesh Singh, AR for workman through VC.
Sh. Dileep Kumar Sharma, proxy counsel for
workman along with workman.
Sh. Yashwant Mudgal, AR for management.
Today matter is listed for management evidence.
However, MW-1 is not present.
Instead of tendering evidence, the management has
filed an application, for deciding issue w.r.t. territorial
jurisdiction as preliminary issue, accompanied with some
documents on behalf of management. Copy supplied.
The issue of territorial jurisdiction has already been
framed vide order dated 09.04.2025. Since then seven dates have
already been elapsed. Workman has already tendered his
evidence and cross-examined by AR for the management.
Thereafter, workman’s evidence was closed on 01.09.2025. On
28.05.2025 the management filed evidence affidavit of Sh.
Dheeraj Chauhan to depose on behalf of management qua issue
of territorial jurisdiction and non-maintainability of the present
LCA under Section 33C(2) of I.D. Act. Thereafter, six dates
elapsed and no application was filed by the management. The
workman evidence was closed on 01.09.2025 and since then for
the last three dates the management is taking adjournments to
lead ME. Instead of leading ME, today also the management
seeks adjournment by filing the present application. The counsel
for the management apprised about already framing of issue of
(Contd….2)
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
territorial jurisdiction on dated 09.04.2025, however, the counsel
was adamant to continuously argue on the application. When the
counsel was asked about the MW-1 he failed to give any
satisfactory explanation and rather continued to argue on the
present application. The counsel was again and again apprised
about the already framed issue on territorial jurisdiction,
however, he was deliberately not hearing the advise of the court.
When the court again and again asked about MW-1 he suddenly
in a rude manner submitted that ‘
uska relative expire ho gaya
hai’.
When the counsel for management asked why this
reason was not disclosed at the first instance then he failed to
give any satisfactory answer.
Considering the facts and circumstances and the
conduct of the AR for management, one last and final
opportunity is granted to the management for leading ME on the
issue of territorial jurisdiction and non-maintainability of the
present LCA in terms of issues already framed on dated
09.04.2015, subject to a cost of Rs.5000/- out of which Rs.4000/-
is to be deposited with the DLSA Fund, RADC Delhi and
remaining cost of Rs.1000/- is to be paid to the workman.
Receipt be placed on record on the next date of hearing.
The application for deciding the issue of territorial
jurisdiction stands disposed off in above terms.
Put up for payment of cost and for ME on 15.04.2026.
(Dr. Surender Mohit Singh)
District Judge,
POLC-08/RACC
New Delhi/16.02.2026(S)
-- 2 of 2 --