Madras High Court
The Executive Officer vs K.Kaliappan on 22 April, 2016
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 22.04.2016 Coram The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam Writ Petition No.27674 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 and W.M.P.No.10091 of 2016 The Executive Officer, Anthiyur Panchayat, Anthiyr, Erode District. ...Petitioner Vs. 1. K.Kaliappan 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem. 3. The Labour Officer, II Floor, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Building, Soormapatti Naal Road, Erode - 9. ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for records, culminating in the ex parte award, dated 18.04.2007, in I.D.No.144 of 2006, and the order, dated 08.01.2010, made in I.A.No.143 of 2007, in the said Industrial Number, passed by the second respondent and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal For Respondent-1 : Mr.V.P.K.Gowtham Respondent-2 : Labour Court Respondent-3 : Labour Officer O R D E R
The petitioner is a Town Panchayat, and the challenge in this Writ Petition is to the ex parte award passed by the Labour Court, Salem, the second respondent, in I.D.No.144 of 2006, dated 18.04.2007, as well as the order, dated 08.01.2010, passed by the said Court in I.A.No.143 of 2007, which was filed to condone the delay of 101 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte award.
2. The first respondent, claiming himself to be working as sweeper in the petitioner/Town Panchayat, raised the dispute before the Labour Officer, challenging his non employment. The conciliation proceedings failed, and subsequently, the first respondent/employee raised the dispute before the Labour Court, Salem. Though the petitioner/Town Panchayat was served in the proceedings, and they entered appearance through counsel, when the dispute was taken up for hearing on 18.04.2007, petitioner/Town Panchayat did not appear, therefore, they were called absent and the Labour Court proceeded to pass ex parte award, dated 18.04.2007, with the available materials on record.
3. The only ground on which, the dispute raised by the first respondent/employee has been allowed by the Labour Court is by observing that the petitioner/Town Panchayat did not turn up to justify the termination of the first respondent/employee. On coming to know about the ex parte award, the petitioner/Town Panchayat filed a Petition to set aside the ex parte award on 10.08.2007, along with their counter statement and an application to condone the delay of 101 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte award. This Interlocutory Application was dismissed by the Labour Court on the ground that, after the expiry of 30 days, from the date on which the award becomes enforceable, the Labour Court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain the application to set aside the award. Therefore, the petitioner/Town Panchayat has filed this Writ Petition, not only challenging the order, refusing to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte award, but also, challenged the ex parte award.
4. I have elaborately heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for first respondent/employee.
5. Therefore, the legal issue for consideration would be, as to whether the Labour Court has become functus officio after expiry of 30 days from the date on which the award becomes enforceable. However, in the instant case, the said legal issue need not be gone into for the reason that the first respondent, having realized that though he has obtained the ex parte award in his favour on 18.04.2007, till date, he has not been able to enjoy of the fruits of the award and he would be agreeable for the award being set aside by this Court and the matter being heard afresh by the Labour Court, subject to the payment of reasonable cost to him.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Town Panchayat is willing to pay cost to the first respondent, and requests that the matter may be remanded to the Labour Court for fresh consideration.
7. In the light of the above concession made by learned counsels on either side, this Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned award dated 18.04.2007 and the impugned order dated 08.01.2010 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court, Salem, for fresh consideration, subject to the condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the first respondent/employee, as costs. After payment of the said amount, the petitioner/Town Panchayat should produce the receipt/acknowledgment before the Labour Court, after which, the Labour Court shall fix a date for the matter being heard, and the Labour Court, Salem, is requested to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months thereafter.
8. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, as stated above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
22.04.2016 Note to Office :
Issue order copy on 26.04.2016 sd Index : yes/no To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.
T.S.Sivagnanam, J.
sd Writ Petition No.27674 of 2011 22.04.2016