Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rajkumar Bajpayee on 5 January, 2015
W.P. No. 4714/2009
05.01.2015
Shri Anubhav Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for
the petitioners.
Shri J. Prasad, learned counsel for the
respondent.
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 21.04.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Rewa, rejecting the application for setting aside ex parte award, on the ground that despite proving the fact that the notice of the original proceedings initiated against the writ petitioners who were second party in the Labour Court was not served and only on an authorization of somebody who was not competent to authorize any lawyer, ex parte proceedings were done against the petitioners and award was passed whereas, if the opportunity would have been granted to the petitioners, it would have been demonstrated by evidence that the respondent was not entitled to any relief from Labour Court, an application submitted for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, was rejected. In fact such an application was not properly decided and hence this writ petition is required to be filed.
2. After issuance of notice of this writ petition on 07.01.2013, records were called from the Labour Court. The respondent despite service of notice has not filed any return but since factum of service of the notice of proceedings initiated before the Labour Court is the only ground raised in the present writ petition, such return would not be of any material use as such fact is required to be verified from the record of the Labour Court.
3. A perusal of the record of the Labour Court indicates that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioners before the Labour Court on reference made on 18.10.1999. The first order sheet indicates that the case was taken on 08.12.1999. Since the Presiding Officer was not available, the case was put up on 15.01.2000; it was adjourned because the notified Presiding Officer was not available. Similar was the situation up to 15.04.2000. On 10.07.2000 order was passed for issuance of notice of the proceedings to the non- applicants i.e. the petitioners herein. On 16.08.2000 the proceedings were written that the second party was absent despite service of notice and, thereafter the case was fixed for orders. The case was adjourned on certain occasion. The order sheet indicates that on 04.10.2000, one Shri P.S. Sharma appeared on behalf of the second party i.e. the petitioners herein. The proceedings went on like this and ultimately statement of respondent was recorded and award was passed on 09.08.2001. The entire record of the Labour Court nowhere contained any document to show that the petitioners herein were ever served with the notice of claim filed before the Labour Court. No document of the Labour Court indicates that before passing of the award, service of notice was affected on the petitioners herein. Carbon copy of the notice dated 18.07.2000 is available on record but there is no acknowledgment on the same. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners herein were not served with the notice of proceedings when were initiated after making reference before the Labour Court.
4. Even if some body was present on behalf of the petitioners in such proceedings, it was the duty of the Presiding Judge to obtain letter of authority from the said person to ascertain whether he was competent to represent the second party in such proceedings or not. Neither any such document was obtained nor any Vakalatnama was filed by any counsel on behalf of the second party and, therefore, it was to be held that the petitioners herein were not given opportunity of representation in the proceedings before the Labour Court. Such pleas were raised, evidence was produced before the Labour Court but instead of considering such evidence, the Labour Court has rejected the application for setting aside ex parte award. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the Labour Court on 21.04.2008 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 21.04.2008 passed on the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioners before the Labour Court is set aside. Instead the application aforesaid is allowed. Ex parte award dated 09.08.2001 passed in case No. 33/ID Act/1999 reference by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rewa, is set aside. The said case is restored on its original number for hearing. Since the petitioners, who are the second party in the said proceedings before the Labour Court are represented by counsel before this Court, they are directed to remain present before the Labour Court along with their reply/statement of claim and to file the same before the Labour Court on 30th March, 2015. The respondent, who is also represented by the counsel, would also remain present before the Labour Court. The Labour Court will take on record reply/statement of claim filed by the second party and will decide the claim made by the respondent expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of first appearance of the parties before the Labour Court. The petitioners herein would not be granted any opportunity in case they fail to produce the statement of claim/reply in terms of the order passed by this Court. Parties to the litigation will not indulge in any dilatory tactics.
6. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. There shall be no order as to costs.
(K.K.Trivedi) Judge b