Chuhad Singh vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—By this writ petition, the workman is challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 11.4.1997, Copy Annexure P-1 as also the order dated 9.2.1999, Copy Annexure P-3.

By the impugned award dated 11.4.1997, the reference was dismissed for non-prosecution by the learned Labour Court. By the order dated 9.2.1999, the application for restoration of the Reference Petition was dismissed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The Labour Court in its order dated 9.2.1999 has observed that the reasons for the non-appearance of the petitioner, stated in the application and the deposition are different and, therefore, dismissed the same having no force. Copy of the application is at Annexure P-2. It is contended by the petitioner therein that on 24.2.1997, the petitioner fell ill and could not attend the court due to unavoidable circumstances nor he could inform his authorised representative. He has. also stated that the Court had passed an order taking ex oarte proceeding against the petitioner on 24.2.1997 and after recovery, he went to the Clerk of the court , who told him that he will be intimated at his-home address because the file was not traceable.

It appears from the impugned order that the petitioner as AW-1 has stated on oath that ho fell ill and could not come to the court for two months and there after the Presiding Officer of the Court was transferred and then he made effort to know the fate of his case and came to the Court 2-3 times but he could not get any information and did not receive any letter and then he moved application for setting-aside the award.

There are some contradictions but it can be seen that they are not material contradictions so as to come to the finding that the reasons stated by the petitioner are false. On the contrary, it can be found that the application, Annexure P-2 was given on 19,12.1997 whereas the impugned award is dated 11.4.1997. If the petitioner has tried to explain his position, as to what were the reasons for his not remaining present and the reasons for the time, after the award are mentioned in the application, there was no reason to discard the same because of minor contradictions which are not material. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has contended that he fell sick.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited before me the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M/s, Norton Engineering Works v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar, reported in 1997(3) PLR 196 wherein it has been held that the Labour Court is under obligation to proceed with the reference and to decide the same on merits, even if the workman even fails to put in appearance before it.

He has also cited a judgment of Division Bench in the case of K.K. Rattan v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, reported in 1993(1) R.S.J. 423. It has been held in the said case that the Court is bound to proceed and decide the matter on merits even if the applicant absents himself and that a dispute referred u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be equated with a civil suit filed in a civil Court which can be dismissed for non- prosecution by the plaintiff. It is further observed that the Tribunal gets the jurisdiction to adjudicate an industrial dispute on a reference made to it, u/s 10 of the Act and the duty required to be performed by it is incorporated in Section 15 of the Act whereunder it has to be answered a reference on merits.

Even otherwise, by this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the original award also. The reason given for dismissal of the reference by the order dated. 11.4.1997 is as under:-

"Case called several times. As no one has appeared on behalf of the parties, it appears that the parties are not interested to prosecute the case. So, the reference is dismissed for non-prosecution."

There appears to be no reason to hold that the petitioner was not interested to pursue the matter. It is found from the above order that only for non-appearance on the day on which the order was passed, the reference is dismissed. The Labour Court should have, in the interest of justice, adjourned the matter to see that the workman does not lose his right to put forward his case only because of absence of one day. From the order quoted above, it is not found that the petitioner remained absent on the dates prior to the date of the order also.

In view of the these reasons, 1 find that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. As a result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the reference is restored to be file of the Labour Court. The Labour Court shall issue notice(s) to the parties and thereafter proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

Petition allowed.