Delhi High Court
Pushpam International (P) Ltd. vs All Indian General Mazdoor on 6 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 104(2003)DLT425, 2003(67)DRJ686, (2003)IILLJ797DEL, 2003(3)SLJ460(DELHI)
Author: S.K. Mahajan
Bench: S.K. Mahajan
JUDGMENT S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. Rule.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.
3. By a reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the dispute relating to the termination of services of four workmen was referred for ad-judication to the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the workmen filed the statement of claim and reply to the same was filed by the management. Issues were framed and the matters was thereafter listed for evidence. The workmen filed their affidavits and the case was fixed for cross-examination of the workmen on 21.2.1995. Since no one appeared on behalf of the management on 21.2.1995, the management was proceeded ex-parte. The Labour Court by the impugned award dated 1.9.1999, after holding that the workmen had filed their affidavits held that they had proved that their termination was Illegally done by the Management. One of the workman, namely, Mr. Ram Narain did not appear before the Court and In his case, no dispute award was passed by the Labour Court. This award has now been challenged by the Management by way of the present petition.
4. Though, the petitioner has also challenged the award on the ground that there was no fault on the part of the management in not appearing before the Labour Court, however, in my opinion, even on merits the award cannot be sustained. The Labour Court has not discussed the evidence led by the workmen before it and it is not clear from the award as to how the workmen had proved their case before the Labour Court. In my opinion, it was incumbent upon the Labour Court to discuss the evidence and state as to how the workmen's case has been proved. The Labour Court ought to have given its finding on the issues before it after discussing the evidence placed by the parties. Since the Labour Court had not stated the evidence at all and has not discussed in the order as to how the workmen have proved their cases, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition and the impugned award is liable to be set aside.
5. I, accordingly, allow this writ petition and set aside the award and remand the case to Labour Court V for decision on merits after giving an opportunity to the Management to cross-examine the workmen and also after giving an opportunity to the management to lead its evidence. The Management will, however, pay a sum of Rs. 10000/- by way of costs to the workmen before any opportunity is granted to him to cross-examine the witnesses and to produce his witnesses. The amount deposited in this Court shall remain deposited till the matter is decided by the Labour Court. The Office is directed to place the said amount in a fixed deposit initially for a period of two years. The Labour Court is directed to make an endeavor to dispose of the reference within a period of one year.