Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jeet Ram, Ex-Workman vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 7 May, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2003)135PLR318
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The workman is aggrieved against the order passed by the Labour Court on 24th March, 1987 whereby the ex-parte award dated 22nd October, 1984 passed in favour of the Management was set aside.
2. The brief facts out of which the writ petition arises is that the workman has pleaded that his services were terminated by the Management on 1st April, 1984. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court Ambala City, By an ex parte award dated 22nd October, 1984, the Labour Court held that the workman be treated on duty since the date of his termination and to grant him all benefits which he was entitled which he would have enjoyed. On 31st December, 1984, the Management moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 27th September, 1984 as well as the award dated 22nd October, 1984. It was alleged that the Management has sent the reply by the registered post which was returned back with the report that the of-fice was closed on 28th August, 1984 and another report of refusal by postal department dated 27th August, 1984. Thus, the Management was under impression that fresh notice would be issued. The said application was dismissed in default on 7th January, 1985. Consequently, the Management moved application for restoration of the application on 19th January, 1985. Vide the impugned award, the said application has been allowed.
3. The Management in support of its case examined Shri Chitranjan Aggarwal, who stated that the Management had directed General Manager Shri Chopra to attend the Court but he had to go to Ludhiana and when reached at 12.30 P.M. at Panchkula, the Court was adjourned. Thereafter, the letter was written to the Court but no reply was received. They never came to know of the ex parte order. When they came to know of the exparte award, they engaged an Advocate and moved an application for setting aside the ex parte award. The application was fixed for 7th January, 1985 at Panchkula but authorised representatives of the Management did not reach in he Court at Panchkula. Consequently, the application was dismissed. Another application was moved. Learned Labour Court relied upon the statement of authorised representative of the Management alongwith affidavit filed that the failure of the authorised representatives to appear in Court on 27th September, 1984 was for sufficient reasons. The Labour Court also found that the Management made sincere efforts for setting aside the ex-parte order and consequently set aside ex parte award by allowing the application moved by the Management.
4. In this writ petition, the workman challenged the setting aside of the ex parte award. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman has argued that after the award is published, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide application for setting aside the award as it has become functus officio. He relied upon D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and others, 1983 Lab.I.C. 1629. It is also argued that the conduct of the Management was to delay the proceedings. Thus, the Management is not entitled to any equitable relief from the Court.
5. Controverting the stand of the petitioner, Shri R.L. Chopra, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Satnam Verma v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 294 and Anil Sood v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-11, 2001(10) S.C.C. 534 to contend that the Labour Court retains jurisdiction to entertain an application for setting aside award even after the publication of the award. It is also submitted that the Management had taken all possible steps within their control but still could not avoid ex parte proceedings. The absence was for good and sufficient reasons.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Labour Court setting aside the ex parte award is within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has not given any date on which the award is published in the Official Gazettee. There is nothing on record to support the argument that the award was in fact published. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone that the award rendered by the Labour Court Panchkula has not been published. Therefore, the argument that the Labour Court has become functus officio is not tenable.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satnam Verma's case has approved earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grindyas Bank Limited v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 606. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for setting aside the ex parte award, even if the award is published in official gazette. The Supreme Court has held that Rule 22 and Rule 24(b) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 are in pari materia with Rules 22 and 24 of the Industrial Dispute (Punjab) Rules. The Court held thus:-
"The Court then proceeded to examine the contention that once an ward is published in the Official Gazette, be it an ex parte one, does the Tribunal become functus officio and, therefore will have no jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte award and that as contended before us the appropriate Government alone could set it aside and rejected it holding that no finality is attached to an ex parte award because it is always subject to Its being set aside on sufficient cause being shown. The Court held that the Tribunal had the power to deal with an application properly made before it for setting aside the ex parte award and pass suitable orders. We have extensively referred to this decision because it effectively answers all the limbs of the contention convassed before us and which unfortunately, found favour with the Labour Court and the High Court.
8. In subsequent judgment in Anil Sood's case (supra), the Supreme Court observed the following effect: -
"The power to proceed ex parte is available under Rule 22 of the Central Rules which also includes the power to inquire whether or not there was sufficient cause for the absence of a party at the hearing, and if there is sufficient cause shown which prevented a party from appearing, then if the party is visited with an award without a notice which is a nullity and, therefore, the Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to proceed and consequently, it must necessarily have power to set aside the ex parte award.
If this be position in law both the High Court and the Tribunal (sic Labour Court) fell into an error in stating that the Labour Court had become functus officio after making the award though exparte. We set aside the order made and the award passed by the Labour Court and affirmed by the High Court in this regard, in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the respondent conceded that application filed by the appellant be allowed, set aside the exparte award and restore the reference. To decide the matter afresh, the parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 11th December, 2000 to take further directions as regards the proceedings. As the matter is very old, it would be appropriate for the Labour Court to dispose of this reference as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from today. Appeal is allowed accordingly."
9. In view of the above judgment of the Supreme Court and the fact that there is no averment that the ward has been published, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Ambala on 21st July, 2003 for further proceedings in accordance with law.