Madras High Court
L. Amarnath vs The Presiding Officer on 4 October, 2012
Author: Vinod K.Sharma
Bench: Vinod K.Sharma
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04/10/2012
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA
Writ Petition (MD) No.11627 of 2012
L. Amarnath ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Presiding Officer
Labour Court
Trichy.
2. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Division IV
Now renamed as
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd
Pudukottai Region
Pudukottai. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
the issuance of Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from
the first respondent relating to the order dated 27/6/2012 passed in I.A.No.188
of 2011 in I.D.No.22 of 2006, quash the same and consequently direct the first
respondent to restore the I.D.No.22/2006 and to enquire the same and pass award
on merits within a time frame fixed by this Court.
!For petitioner ... Mr.S.Arunachalam
^For respondents ... Mr.D.Sivaraman for R.2.
- - - - - -
:ORDER
The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the learned labour Court in I.A.No.188 of 2011 in I.D.No.22 of 2006 with a consequential relief of directing the learned labour Court to decide the reference on merit.
2. The impugned order passed by the learned labour Court reads as under:-
"This petition is filed to set aside the ex parte award passed by this Court on 12/12/2008.
The petitioner/workman filed this Industrial Dispute challenging the order of dismissal passed by the respondent and prayed for reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service.
When the matter was pending before this Court, the petitioner failed to appear on 12/12/2008 and so, the Industrial Dispute Petition was dismissed for default.
The reason given by the petitioner for his absence on the date of hearing is due to his ill health. Because of ill health, he cannot able to conduct his advocate and after recovery when he contacted his advocate on 29/5/2009, he came to know the Industrial Dispute was dismissed for default and on the basis, he prayed to allow this petition.
In the counter filed by the respondent, it is contended that the reason given by the petitioner is not true. It is further contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application. Since the award was published on 1/4/2009, this petitioner has filed this petition after 30 days from the date of publication. So he prayed to dismiss the petition.
Point for consideration:
Whether the reason given by the petitioner is sufficient to set aside the order of dismissal passed on 12/12/2008?
The petitioner filed this petition to set aside the order of dismissal of original petition on 12/12/2008.
The reason given by the petitioner is that due to ill health he was not able to attend the Court and due to heart ailment, he was not able to contact his advocate till 25/9/2009.
The respondent has disputed the reason it is not supported with documents.
The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (1) LLJ (SC) page 267 in a case between Management, Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board and Subramaniam and another in which it is held as follows:
"Application to set aside ex parte award made 30 days after its publication cannot succeed as per Section 17 - A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."
On perusal of records, it appears that the award was published on 1/4/2009. So, the application to set aside the ex parte award must have been filed within 30 days. Even though, the Labour Court has not availed summer vacation, this petition was filed after 30 days from the date of knowledge.
In this way, the Judgment relied upon by the petitioner reported in 2010 (3) CTC 678 is not applicable the facts of the case, as Judgment relied upon by the respondent is delivered by a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court.
In this view, as this interim application is filed 30 days after publication of award, this Court becomes functus officio and so, this Court cannot set aside the award.
In this view, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief.
In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs."
3. When the case came up for hearing, a strange request was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this case should be adjourned as the petitioner has not placed on record the impugned order, and other pleadings in the case. This request is an attempt to over reach this Court as the impugned order is on record.
4. Further more, in view of the law laid down by this Court in P.K.SRI RAM Vs. THE SOURASHTRA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, rep. BY ITS CORRESPONDENT AND SECRETARY, 110 KAMARAJAR ROAD, MADURAI 9 AND THREE OTHERS reported in 2012 (2) CWC 310.
5. It was not open to seek adjournment to place the additional documents as it is not permissible to hand over additional documents in Court without appropriate application making out a ground for acceptance of these documents. The request for adjournment was declined.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter, refused to assist this Court.
7. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of POONAM Vs. SUMIT TANWAR, AIR 2010 SC 1384, has been pleased to lay down as under:
"14. In T.C.Mathai and another Vs. District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, AIR 1999 SC 1385: 1999 AIR SCW 1062, this Court observed:
"The work in a Court of law is a serious and responsible function. The primary duty of a ... Court is to administer .... justice. Any lax or wayward approach, if adopted towards the issues involved in the case, can cause serious consequences for the parties concerned ..... In the adversary system which is now being followed in India, both in Civil and Criminal litigation, it is very necessary that the Court gets proper assistance from both sides..... Efficacious discharge of judicial process very often depends upon the valuable services rendered by the legal profession."
16. Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarised to the effect that, in case the Counsel for the party is not able to render any assistance, the Court may decline to entertain the petition.
17. There is another aspect of the matter. In case the petitioner's counsel is not able to raise a factual or legal issue, though such a point may have a good merit, the Court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not "have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted" in this behalf. Such a judgment may be violative of the Principles of Natural Justice. (Vide New Delhi Municipal Committee v. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 SC 2847: 1997 AIR SCW 2851)."
8. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner has refused to render assistance to this Court, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
mvs.
To
1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Trichy.