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

Anjani Kumar, J.—The employer-Petitioner aggrieved by the ex parte award dated 12.1.1998, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed by the labour court in Adjudication Case No. 107 of 1997, whereby the reference made by the State Government u/s 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'', which is reproduced below, has been answered by the labour court in favour of the workman concerned to the effect that the termination of the services of the concerned workman by the employer w.e.f. 26.5.1992 is illegal and unjustified and the workman concerned, therefore, is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages.

other language

The aforesaid award dated 12.1.1998 was published by the State Government on 29.5.1998. It is after the aforesaid award was published, as stated above, the employer filed an application for setting aside the ex parte award, which has been rejected by the labour court vide his order dated 3.11.1998, Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The labour court has refused to set aside the ex parte award for the reasons that admittedly the employer has received the information of award dated 12.1.1998, but after the award was published on 29.5.1998, the said application must have been filed before one month from the date of publication of the award, i.e., before 29.6.1998 and once an award is published by the State Government, the labour court becomes functus officio and since no ground for allowing the application for setting aside the ex parte award is made out, the application is rejected and the award dated 12.1.1998 has become final. It is these two orders ; one is the award and the other is the order refusing to exercise the ex parte award, which have been challenged by the employer by means of this writ petition.

I have heard learned standing counsel representing the Petitioner-employer and Sri B. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent-workman.

The labour court has taken a view so far as the application for setting aside the ex parte award is concerned that the application for setting aside the ex parte award has been filed after a highly belated stage and particularly after one month of the publication of the award when the labour court has become functus officio and no sufficient cause for the delay has been furnished. It is also held by the labour court that on receipt of the reference, the notices were issued to both the parties, namely, the employer and the workman concerned. The notice was duly served on the employer and they have put in appearance on the first date and on their request, the case was adjourned to the next date as there was no authorisation on record in favour of the representative of the employer. The workman appeared himself in person before the labour court. On the next date also, no authorisation was filed and, therefore, the labour court passed the order directing the case to proceed ex parte against them as no authorisation has been filed on behalf of the employer, nor employer himself appeared before the labour court. After the said date, the employer remained absent and the matter proceeded ex parte and in the absence of any contest, the labour court, in my opinion, has rightly arrived at the conclusion that since there is no rebuttal, nor any denial of the claim made by the workman concerned, the labour court had no option but to have accepted the same and in these circumstances the ex parte award has been given by the labour court.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner tries to assail the order of the labour court refusing to set aside the ex parte award on the ground that the labour court ought to have afforded opportunity to the employer, which having not been given, serious injustice has been caused to the employer. In these circumstances, the order of the labour court refusing to set aside the ex parte award and rejecting the application for recall deserves to be quashed.

From the narration of the facts stated above, the contention of learned Counsel for the employer-Petitioner deserves to be rejected. The labour court afforded full opportunity to the employer and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that opportunity was not afforded to the employer to put up their case before the labour court. In the circumstance, the natural conclusion is that in spite of opportunity being giving to the employer, the employer has not availed the opportunity to contest the case. In these circumstances, the findings recorded by the labour court under the award impugned in the present writ petition do not warrant any interference by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order of the labour court refusing to set aside the ex parte award and also the ex parte award are upheld. The writ petition being devoid of any merits deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The interim order/orders, if any, stands vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.