Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras vs The Presiding Officer, Ii Additional ... on 23 August, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1997)ILLJ923MAD
JUDGMENT K.A. Swami, C.J.
1. As the matter lies in a very narrow compass and as the contesting respondent is represented, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.
2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated February 8, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing W.P. 11035 of 1995, in which the petitioner/appellant has sought for quashing the award dated March 28, 1994 passed in I.D. 309 of 1993.
3. Learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that even though twice an opportunity was given to the writ petitioner/appellant, it did not avail of the same and did not adduce evidence, therefore the jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised in favour of such a party. Accordingly, learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition.
4. Before us, it is contended that the award is not a speaking order, in as much as it neither considers evidence, nor gives reason for passing the award, directing the 2nd respondent to be reinstated with backwages, continuity of Service and other attendant benefits.
5. The award of the Labour Court reads thus :-
"The dispute has been raised by the petitioner above mentioned under Section 2-4(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947, against the Respondent praying this Court to set aside the order of dismissal passed against her by the management and to reinstate her in service with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
2. The respondent did not file any counter statement.
3. Today (February 28, 1994), the dispute is taken up for enquiry. The respondent was already called absent and set exparte W.W.I. is examined. Exs. W1 to W4 are marked. The claim is proved. Hence, an award is passed directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits with costs of Rs. 100/-
6. Thus, from the aforesaid award, it is clear that the Labour Court has not considered the evidence on record. Even though the appellant remained absent, nevertheless, there was evidence)n record. There were the statements of the case pleaded by the petitioner and the respondent. The Labour Court was required to consider and give reasons for passing the award in favour of the 2nd respondent workman. As no such reason is given, not even the facts of the case are stated, the award cannot at all be considered to be a speaking order, as such it cannot be sustained. The Presiding Officer is an Officer of the District Judge grade. He should not have decided the dispute in such a manner. There is no judicial application of mind of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. Such exercise of jurisdiction causes great and incalculable damage to the parties and also to the administration of justice. The Presiding Officer would do better, if he discotinues such a habit of disposal of cases.
7. As the delay is also due to the fact that the appellant has failed to avail the opportunity afforded to it, it is a case, in which exemplary costs should be awarded.
8. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order dated February 8, 1996 passed in the writ petition, and allow the writ petition in the following terms. The award dated March 28, 1994 passed in I.D. 309 of 1993 is quashed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid by the appellant to the 2nd respondent on or before September 18, 1996 on which date the Labour Court, Madras, shall call this case and restore the I.D. to its file. The appellants shall pay the aforesaid amount of costs. The Labour Court shall also try and decide the dispute, within six weeks from September 18, 1996. The C.M.P. is disposed of.