Madras High Court
Palani K. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 28 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2007)IILLJ612MAD
Author: K. Chandru
Bench: K. Chandru
ORDER K. Chandru, J.
1. Writ petition is filed by one K. Palani, who was examined as M.W.1 in the proceedings before the Labour Court in I.D. 37 of 1998. The original dispute was raised by the second respondent against the third respondent regarding his non-employment under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act and the matter was pending before the Labour Court in I.D.No. 37 of 1998 and the third respondent examined the writ petitioner as 'witness'. The Labour Court in paragraph 23 held as follows:
Admittedly, M.V.1 came to the Court and says that W.W.1 is his worker. Petitioner's grievance is that he was denied employment unjustly. However, to which there was no murmur from the mouth of M.W.1. Therefore, it follows that he was denied employment unjustly. In such circumstances, It is just and legal that he should be given employment by M.W.1 with back wages and other benefits. Thus, it would be apposite to direct M.W. 1 into his service with back wages and all other benefits.
2. On that basis, the Labour Court granted relief against the writ petitioner, directing the second respondent's reinstatement with back wages. This award is attacked by the petitioner, who says that he is not a party to the original dispute and he is not summoned to be a party to the dispute.
3. Mr. K.M. Ramesh learned Counsel for the second respondent submits that under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, the award is binding on the petitioner. As rightly contended by Mr. Thiagarajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that only when a person is summoned to appear as a party to the dispute the award will bind him and in the present case, the petitioner came only as witness and Section 18(3) will not apply. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly came to give evidence on behalf of the third respondent. Therefore, no liability can be fastened on him by the Labour Court and hence, the award is illegal. This contention is well merited and deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the award of the Labour Court is quashed.
4. Though Mr. K.M. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter should be remanded back for fresh disposal. However even if the matter is remanded, the same objection will continue. Since the second respondent has initiated proceedings against a wrong employer and now that, by the evidence recorded by the Labour Court, the correct employer has been identified, it is open to the second respondent to raise a fresh dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act against the writ petitioner and can claim all the reliefs, that he wants to claim.
5. With the above observation the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.