AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are workmen employed by the 2nd respondent. As against their non-employment,
they raised a dispute u/s 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. After a failure report given by the Conciliation Officer, claim statements were filed
before the 1st respondent Labour Court. The Labour Court entertained those claim statements as various industrial disputes and in the present
case, the industrial disputes are treated as I.D. Nos. 471, 553, 694 and 507 of 1996.
Subsequently, it transpires that the petitioners did not prosecute the disputes diligently and they were dismissed for want of prosecution by an
order dated 28.2.2002. The petitioners never took any steps to set aside the ex parte order by invoking Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Dispute Rules. The petitioners thereafter came to file an application to set aside the ex parte award by filing interim applications only in the year
2008. In the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay, the petitioners stated that their authorised representative one Mr.
R.K. Swaminathan expired on 18.3.2001 and they were not informed about the death of their authorised representative. Therefore, the industrial
dispute came to be dismissed for default. It is only when they came to know after the dismissal of the industrial dispute after a period of 6 years,
they chose to file applications for setting aside the ex parte award. The applications filed by the petitioners were numbered as I.A. Nos. 33, 86, 87
and 57 of 2008.
On notice from the Labour Court on the application to condone the delay of 2208 days, the management opposed the restoration on the ground
that the delay has not been sufficiently explained. The Labour Court heard all the interim applications together and passed a common order dated
20.6.2008. The Labour Court by the common order dismissed all the applications stating that the delay in moving the court was not sufficiently
explained. Therefore, it is not a fit case where the applications can be taken on file. In paragraphs 3 and 7 of the order, it was found as follows:
In the affidavit there is nothing requesting the move or steps by the petitioners in between after death of the representative in 2001 and petition
filed in the year 2008. It is not even shown in the affidavit that they have been interested in conducting the case. It shows their lethargic attitude.
Further they have not been litigant in prosecuting the case. It is also seen from the records that the above petition is filed long after years in
publication of the award. The reasons alleged in the affidavit are as bald as it could be and the petitioner want indulgence of court when they
themselves are not diligent in conduction the case.
...
In this case on hand that the petition was filed after lapse of many years after the publication of the award. It could be seen that there is no valid
ground to entertain the petition. On the other hand it shows that the petitioners were not interested in conducting the case and further not diligent in
proceeding with the case. It shows that the petitioners slept over years after the disposal of the case. The court finds that there is no justification in
condoning the delay. Hence in the above circumstance the petitioner is dismissed without costs.
It is this order, which is challenged in the Writ Petition.
The petitioners have stated the very same reasons, which were stated in the applications to condone the delay. Though it was stated that they
were willing to forego back wages for the year 2002-2008, that was not a ground to condone the delay. No doubt, the Supreme Court held that
the Labour Court cannot refuse to answer a reference on the grounds of delay and once a reference is made, then the delay can only have a
bearing on the back wages. The same reasoning will not apply to an order of reference which is dismissed for default and sought to be revived
after a period of six years. Then the Rule 48 of the Industrial Disputes Rules will come into operation and unless the delay is satisfactorily explained
to the Court, it is the court''s discretion to reject such exercise.
In the present case, the 1st respondent Labour Court has clearly stated that the grounds raised by the petitioner are not acceptable and they
were not diligent enough to pursue their remedy brought to the court. In this context, the finding of the Labour Court that they have slept over the
matter for more than 6 years cannot be impeached in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, all the Writ Petitions stand
dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.