State of U.P. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra and Another

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Government of U.P. vide its order dated 30.10.1993 referred the following matter of dispute to the Labour Court, Agra u/s 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The dispute referred to the Labour Court above was registered as Adjudication Case No. 519 of 1993 by it.

On receipt of summons from the Labour Court the employer did not file any written statement nor controverted the averments made by the workman in his written statement by filing any rejoinder statement. The workman appeared before the Labour Court on 16.11.1995 and Sri Anil Goel, the representative of the employer also appeared and informed the Labour Court that the employers do not want to contest the case, hence the Court passed an order to proceed ex-parte.

The claim of the workman before the Labour Court was that he was appointed as ''Mate'' in the Petitioner establishment and was drawing regular pay without any break in service upto 25.6.1992; that his services were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as he was not given any notice or retrenchment compensation etc. He also gave his oral evidence in support of his case.

The Labour Court by its award directed reinstatement of the workman concerned with full back wages and continuity of service as well as cost of Rs. 200/-. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are contained in paragraph 6 of the impugned award which read as under:

The aforesaid award has been challenged in the present writ petition on the ground that it is ex-parte and has been passed without giving reasonable opportunity to the employers to contest the reference. It is stated that in fact the employer had filed objection before the Labour Court on 25.6.1993 as such the impugned award dated 8.12.1995 and subsequent order dated 10.10.1996 are against the principles of natural justice for the reason that the Court below could not have proceeded to pass ex-parte order without at least considering the objection filed by the department.

At the time of admission, on 14.5.1999 the following order was passed.

The Petitioner is directed to reinstate the Respondent No. 2 within two weeks on furnishing a certified copy of this order. The Respondent No. 2 will also be entitled for payment of salary with effect from 27.3.1998. The Respondent No. 2 will also get month to month salary in future. The department dealing with the services of the workman was Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Mainpuri. The Respondent had knowledge about the ex-parte award but the application to set aside the ex-parte award was filed with substantial delay without giving any proper reason. The affidavit in support of the application to set aside the ex-parte award was filed by one Sri Om Prakash, Senior Clerk and not by any responsible officer. This indicates the negligence and non-accountability of Senior Officers. I accordingly, direct that the salary of the Respondent No. 2 would be paid personally by the Executive Engineer who was posted at the relevant time i.e. December, 1995 in the department. The salary payable by him would be from the date of the award i.e. 18.12.1995 till up to the date of the rejection of the application i.e. 29.6.1998.

What was the objection filed by the Petitioner before the Labour Court is not on record nor any order sheets of the Labour Court has been filed.

To my mind mere filing of objection before a Court is not sufficient. There is no evidence on record nor any averments have been made in the writ petition that the Petitioner or its representative ever pressed the said objection before the Labour Court. In fact there is a categorical finding that the employer had not filed any written statement and it was on 16.11.1995 that Sri Anil Goel had informed the Labour Court on behalf of the Petitioner department that the employers do not want to contest the claim petition, therefore, any objection even if filed has rightly not been considered. The impugned in the circumstances, award is liable to be implemented as provided u/s 6-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.