Madras High Court
United Labour Federation vs The Presiding Officer on 4 July, 2023
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.Nos.35391 and 35392 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.Nos.35391 and 35392 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
United Labour Federation
represented by its General Secretary,
No.149, Thambu Chetty Street,
IV Floor, C.S.Complex,
Chennai-600 001. ... Petitioner in both W.Ps
-Vs-
1. The Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court,
Chennai.
2. The Management of Suhesh Industries,
Plot No.B9,
SIPCOT Industrial Complex,
Gummidipoondi-601201. ... Respondents in both W.Ps
Prayer in W.P.No.35391 of 2013:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in connection
with orders in I.A.No.9 of 2012 in I.A.S.R.No.4928 of 2008 in
I.D.No.124 of 2002 pronounced on 19.02.2013 and quash the same and
direct the first respondent to restore the I.D.No.124 of 2002 to decide the
same on merits.
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.35391 and 35392 of 2013
Prayer in W.P.No.35392 of 2013:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in connection
with the impugned award in I.D.No.124 of 2002 pronounced on
08.07.2008 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to restore
the I.D.No.124 of 2002 to decide the same on merits.
In both W.Ps
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Sudalaikannu
For Respondents
R1 : Court
R2 : Notice served
No appearance
COMMON ORDER
The Writ Petition in W.P.No.35391 of 2013 has been filed as against the I.A.No.9 of 2012 in I.A.S.R.No.4928 of 2008 in I.D.No.124 of 2002 dated 19.02.2013, thereby dismissing the application to condone the delay of 1003 days in re-presenting the application for restoration petition.
2. The Writ Petition in W.P.No.35392 of 2013 has been filed as against I.D.No.124 of 2002 dated 08.07.2008, thereby dismissing the Page 2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.35391 and 35392 of 2013 industrial dispute for non prosecution.
3. The petitioner is the labour federation. The labourers of the second respondent management, in its factory at Gummidipoondi, SIPCOT Complex, are the members of the petitioner's union. The moment the workers joined the petitioner's union, the second respondent management imposed an illegal lockout with effect from 23.10.2000. Therefore, the petitioner raised Industrial dispute for payment of bonus at 20% for the year 1999, 2000 and 2001. When the dispute was pending before the III Additional Labour Court as I.D.No.331 of 2003, due to the said demand, the second respondent commenced the illegal lockout since 23.10.2000 which was continuing till the filing of this writ petition and the management was continuing to manufacture through contract labourers having locked out the directly employed permanent workers. The second respondent is claiming as if the workers went on strike which is incorrect. Therefore, the petitioner raised industrial dispute declaring the cessation of work in the second respondent management with effect from 23.10.2000 and also directed the second respondent management to lift the lockout imposed with effect from 23.10.2000 and also for Page 3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.35391 and 35392 of 2013 payment of back wages and other benefits to the members of the petitioner's union in I.D.No.124 of 2002, on the file of the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai.
4. After filing counter by the second respondent, the petitioner was unable to appear before the Court, on 08.07.2008. Therefore, the ID raised by the petitioner was dismissed for default on 08.07.2008. In order to set aside the award, the petitioner filed a petition to restore the ID with a delay of 28 days in filing the petition for restoration. It was returned for some corrections. However, thereafter, the said return petition was misplaced in the office of the counsel on record and as such there was 1003 days in re-presenting the petition to restore the main ID. Therefore, I.A.No.9 of 2012 was filed. It was dismissed by an order dated 19.02.2013.
5. Mr.V.Prakash, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the labour Court cannot dismiss the industrial dispute for default. The labour Court has to pass orders only on merits after completion of pleadings. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner Page 4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.35391 and 35392 of 2013 filed a claim petition and the respondent also filed a counter. Therefore, the labour Court ought not to have dismissed the industrial dispute for default.
6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.657 of 2007 in the case of Commissioner, Tiruppur Municipality Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors and the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2018 (16) SCC 567 in the case of Haryana Suraj Malting Limited Vs Phool Chand.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was served on the second respondent and the name has been printed, no one appeared on behalf of the second respondent either in person or through pleader.
8. A perusal of records revealed that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the labour Court. Thereafter, the petitioner was unable to appear before the labour Court and as such the labour Court Page 5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.35391 and 35392 of 2013 dismissed the claim petition for default. In order to restore the same, the petitioner filed an application for restoration with a delay of 28 days. However, it was returned for some corrections and the same was misplaced in the office of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was re-presented with a delay of 1003 days. It was dismissed on the ground that no sufficient reason was shown in the affidavit filed in support of the condonation of delay in re-presenting the petition. The only point to be answered in both the writ petitions is that whether the labour Court can dismiss the industrial dispute for default?
9. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.657 of 2007 in the case of Commissioner, Tiruppur Municipality Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors, in which the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-
Rule 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in a judgment reported in Agra Electric Supply Company v. Labour Court, Meerut, (AIR 1970 SC 806 =1969(1) SCC 243 = 1970-1-LLJ-1), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held as under:
"That provision which, clearly enjoins the Labour Court or Tribunal in the circumstances mentioned therein to proceed with Page 6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.35391 and 35392 of 2013 the case in his absence either on the date fixed or any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned coupled with the further direction and pass such order as it may deem fit and proper, clearly indicates that the Tribunal or Labour Court should take up the case and decide it on merits and not dismiss it for default."
10. Thus, it is clear that even though the petitioner remained absent, the labout Court is required to consider the dispute and pass award giving reasons and as such the award should be a speaking order on merits and based on the materials available on record.
11. A perusal of the award revealed that it was dismissed for default and it is also a non speaking award without any reasons, though the second respondent filed its counter.
12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2018 (16) SCC 567 in the case of Haryana Suraj Malting Limited Vs Phool Chand, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that in case a party is in a position to show sufficient cause for its absence before the Labour Court/ Tribunal when it was set ex parte, the Labour Court/Tribunal, in exercise of its ancillary or incidental powers, is Page 7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.35391 and 35392 of 2013 competent to entertain such an application. That power cannot be circumscribed by limitation. What is the sufficient cause and whether its jurisdiction is invoked within a reasonable time should be left to the judicious discretion of the Labour Court/Tribunal.
13. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the delay in re- presenting the application for restoration of industrial dispute revealed that after taking the petition to comply the returns, the petition was misplaced in its counsel's office at the time of renovation. Therefore, the petitioner was unable to re-present the paper on the stipulated time and the same was re-presented only with a delay of 1003 days.
14. Therefore, this Court felt the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the condonation of delay in re-presenting the application for restoration is satisfied and the labour Court ought to have allowed the petition. That apart, the labour Court cannot dismiss the industrial dispute for default.
Page 8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.35391 and 35392 of 2013
15. In view of the above, the award passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.124 of 2002, is hereby set aside. The first respondent is directed to pass orders in I.D.No.124 of 2002, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. Accordingly, W.P.No.35392 of 2013 stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. In view of the order passed in W.P.No.35392 of 2013, the petition in W.P.No.35391 of 2013 is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
04.07.2023 Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order mn Page 9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.35391 and 35392 of 2013 To
1. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai.
2. The Management of Suhesh Industries, Plot No.B9, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi-601201.
Page 10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.35391 and 35392 of 2013 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn W.P.Nos.35391 and 35392 of 2013 04.07.2023 Page 11 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis