Delhi High Court: In the proceedings of a petition challenging an Award passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court-IX, Rouse Avenue, wherein it was ordered to reinstate the respondent with full back wages, a Single Judge Bench of Chandra Dhari Singh, J., criticized the actions of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (‘DHCLSC’) for not providing legal aid even after being asked by the Court to appoint a lawyer for the respondent since he could not afford one.
In the present case, the respondent informed the Court that he approached the DHCLSC seeking the engagement of a counsel for his case because of his financial hardship but even after several requests, counsel was not provided to him.
Upon perusal of the written requests by the respondent, the Court stated that it was a matter of concern that despite several requests made by the respondent, he was not provided legal assistance by DHCLSC. Further, the Court criticized DHCLSC, saying it had miserably failed to discharge its primary duty of providing legal assistance to the poor litigant.
The Court also stated that the DHCLSC had acted as an impediment to the respondent instead of providing opportunities for securing justice. Further, the Court also mentioned that the Legal Service Authorities play a significant role in cases where the litigant, due to any economic or financial hardship, is unable to access justice. Therefore, the Legal Service Authorities shall promptly act if legal aid is sought by eligible litigants.
The Court, while passing the Order, called for an affidavit within 10 days from the Secretary of DHCLSC explaining why despite receiving two letters from the respondent, legal aid had not been provided. The Court also appointed an advocate to represent the case of the respondent. The matter was listed for further hearing on 06-05-2024.
[Atlas Logistic Pvt Ltd. v. Jitendra Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3237, Order dated 03-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Sugam Mishra
For Respondent — Party in person
