Ram Swaroop vs Municipal Corporation, Amritsar

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner-workman is challenging the award dated 1.12.1992, Annexure P/1, vide which the reference arising from the demand notice was dismissed in default and also the order dated 4.9.2000, copy Annexure P/2, vide which his application for setting- aside the order was dismissed.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the record, the dale of termination of the service of the petitioner is 7.9.1984. The demand notice is dated 7.9.1984 (i.e. of the same date). The reference was made on 4.1.1995. He also states that the issues were framed on 8.4.1995 and thereafter the matter was adjourned for Management evidence upto 19.2.90. The fact that the matter was adjourned for management evidence is apparent from the order dated 8.4.1985, i.e. the part of the order below the issues, which is as under :-

"To come up from evidence of the respondent on 18.7.1985".

It is also apparent from the record that there is another order dated 2.8.1990 in which it is mentioned as under

"No evidence present. Respondent employment produced his evidence on 15.10.90. Last opportunity."

Thereafter, on 15.10.90, the management has examined ore witness and sought adjournment. The matter was adjourned for remaining evidence of the Management for 15.11.1990. On 15.11.1990, the case was adjourned for evidence of the parties. However, the management had not concluded the evidence. The matter was thereafter adjourned for one reason or the other and ultimately on 1.12.1992, the case was dismissed in default.

The application for selling-aside the order of dismissal in default is dated 16.5.1994. The reasons for rejection of the application given in the order are as under :-

"11. No explanation and justification for delay in filing the instant application has been given by the applicant and it has been held in the ruling supra Inder Singh v. Presiding Officer, that the application for restoration of the reference in the Labour Court which was filed after more than a year without any justified explanation, was rightly dismissed by the Labour Court especially when the workman not found serious about prosecuting his case. So, in this view of the matter, the application which has been filed after long delay of about one and half years after dismissal of the reference for non- prosecution, cannot be accepted. There is, thus, no ground to restore the reference in question. The issue is, thus, held against the applicant and in favour of respondent."

I do not at present go into the question whether technically after one month of publication of the award, the Labour Court could have dealt-with the matter regarding setting-aside the order or not ? However, when ;the case had prolonged for such a long period and though it was mentioned that it was pending for evidence of the parties, virtually, it was pending for management evidence because after examination of one witness on 15.10.1990, the management evidence was not concluded.

It is also apparent from the order sheets that the petitioner-workman had remained present on many occasions except on some occasions. The reason given by the petitioner for the same is that he was away from Amritsar and informed his representative for his absence but the representative was busy somewhere in out door meetings and could not attend the Court on 1.12.1992 and the matter was dismissed in default on 1.12.1992. The respondent had filed a reply and denied the contentions made in the application for restoration. However, when the petitioner was prompt in issuing the demand notice from the date of termination itself and was present on various dates, it cannot be said that he was not interested in proceeding with the matter.

In view of the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Labour Court dated 1.12.1992 (award), Annexure P/1 is set-aside. The order dated 4.9.2000, Annexure P/2 then automatically stands set-aside.

The case is remanded to the Labour Court for decision in accordance with law.

Petition allowed.