The Management of Venkateswara Electricals P. Ltd. vs The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and Handloom and General Workers Union

S. Tamilvanan, J.—The present writ petition was filed seeking an order to call for the records in I.D. No. 671 of 2003 on the file of the

Principal Labour Court, Chennai 104, the first respondent herein, quash the award dated 17.12.2004 passed therein and also to direct the first

respondent to restore I.D. No. 671 of 2003 to file and dispose of the same.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

Challenging the order dated 17.12.2004, passed in I.D. No. 671 of 2003, on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai the

petitioner/management has preferred this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Mr. M.R. Raghavan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is not legally

sustainable. In support of this contention learned Counsel also relied on the decision reported in Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras Vs. The

Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Madras and Another, . In the affidavit, the petitioner has specifically stated that the materials placed

before the Labour Court was not considered and the award was passed mechanically without due application of mind. In the impugned award

dated 12.12.2004 though ten questions were framed by the labour court, the court has not answered all the points for determination. W.W.1 was

examined on the side of the workman, no one was examined on the side of the management. Exs.W1 to W5 were marked and the petition was

allowed. As contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in paragraph No. 3 of the award, the labour court has held as follows:

Today the dispute is taken up for enquiry. The respondent was already called absent and set ex-parte. W.W.1 is examined in chief and Exs.W1 to

W5 are marked. Perused the evidence and the award is passed holding that the demand for service weight age is justified and the respondents

directed to pay a sum of Rs. 150/-per month per year of service to all workmen taking into account of date of appointment of each worker and the

arrears from the date of realising the demand by the union, the demand for yearly increment for the years 2002 and 2003 is justified and the

respondent is directed to pay annual increment at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month from 01.04.2002 to all the workman, the demand for payment of

traveling allowance is justified and the respondent is directed to pay traveling allowance to all workmen at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month, the

demand for ten days casual leave per year is justified and the respondent is directed to grant ten days casual leave every year to all workmen, the

demand for night shift allowance is justified and the respondent is directed to pay night shift allowance at Rs. 15/- per day of work when the

worker perform night duty, the demand for supply of 3 sets of uniform with stitching charges every year in the month of January every year to all

workmen, the demand for supply of two pairs of batta shoe every years is justified and the respondent is directed to supply two pairs of batta

shoes every year to all workmen, the demand for supply of 3 Hamam bath soap every month is justified and the respondent is directed to supply 3

Hamam Bath Soap every month to all workmen, the demand for payment of washing allowance of Rs. 50/- every month to all workmen is justified

and the respondent is directed to pay Rs. 50/- every month as washing allowance to all workmen and the demand for payment of House rent

allowance to workmen is justified and the respondent is directed to pay Rs. 500/- per month as house rent allowance to all workmen.

It is seen that there is no discussion based on the evidence available on record by the court below for granting the relief�s, sought for and the

questions framed by the court below were not answered.

A Division bench of this Court in a similar case in Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras Vs. The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court,

Madras and Another, at page No. 110 has held as follows:

Today (February 28, 1994), the dispute is taken up for enquiry. The respondent was already called absent and set exparte. W.W.1 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/-. 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 on 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 second 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 discontinues such a habit of disposal of cases.

Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of view that the case on hand and the decision cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner are identical in nature though it is an ex-parte order under challenge, the court below could have decided the points for consideration on

merits based on the evidence available on record. As the order has not been passed on merits, I find it just and reasonable in the light of the

decision referred to above, to allow this writ petition and set aside the order however, on reasonable terms as there was no fault on the part of the

second respondent for the ex-parte order. While, allowing the aforesaid writ appeal, this Court directed the respondent/management to pay a sum

of Rs. 5,000/- towards the costs.

It is a well settled preposition of law that an ex-parte order is also an enforceable order, until the same is set aside by the same court or any

competent forum. However, when it is not a speaking order and findings are not given for the questions or issues framed, based on the evidence

available on record, to meet the ends of justice, the ex-parte order has to be set aside on reasonable terms.

In the instant case, according to the second respondent there were 31 employees working, but learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has

stated that only 18 employees are continuing their service as on today. It is not in dispute that the impugned order was passed in the year 2004. On

the aforesaid facts and circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, I find it just and reasonable to direct the petitioner/management to pay a sum of

Rs. 1,000/- to each one of the worker continuing their service under the petitioner and accordingly totally a sum of Rs. 18,000/- has to be paid to

the second respondent union within a period of three weeks. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within three weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order to the labour union of the second respondent herein. On the aforesaid terms and condition, these writ petition is allowed and the

impugned order is quashed. On compliance, the Court below is directed to restore the I.D. No. 671 of 2003 to file and dispose it on merits within

a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the conditional order is not complied with by