D.M. National Textile Corporation vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And Others

The present appeal by the National Textile Corporation (NTC) is directed against an order dated 3rd July, 2008 of the learned Single Judge dismissing its writ petition i.e. OJC No.13005 of 2001 whereby it had questioned an interlocutory order dated 12th September, 2001 of the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.108 of 1996.

The point which was sought to be urged by the present Appellant before the learned Single Judge is that it should have been permitted to lead separate evidence for deciding the preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry held by it while dismissing Respondent No.2 from service way back on 12th August, 1992 was fair? The learned Single Judge agreed with the Labour Court that it was not mandatory to have that issue decided as the preliminary issue. What weigh to the learned Single was that I. D. Case 108 of 1996 being the claim of the Respondent No.2 workman was still pending in the Labour Court, 16 years after his dismissal, without any progress in the adjudication of the main dispute.

This was listed for hearing in this Court on 23rd June 2009 when notice was directed to be issued to Respondent No.2. A noting on the file shows that the A.D. card has not been received back from Respondent No.2. In other words, Respondent No.2 is yet to be served in the present appeal which has been pending here for over 13 years.

The position emerging from the above narration is that the claim filed by Respondent No.2 against NTC in regard to his dismissal from service nearly 30 years ago i.e. 12th August, 1992 is yet to be adjudicated by the Labour Court. This points to an extraordinary situation where a dismissed workman is unable to get Redressal for nearly three decades even from the Court of first instance, in this case, the Labour Court. This Court is conscious of the fact that even if the present appeal were to be dismissed, all that will happen is that the proceedings in I.D. Case No.108 of 1996 will resume before the Labour Court. It is anybody's case how much long Respondent No.2 workman may have to have his claim adjudicated, particularly considering that he may have next to nil litigating capacity. Therefore, notwithstanding that the present Appellant may have the law in its favour on the point raised, on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Cooper Engineering  Ltd.  v.  SRI  P.P.  Munde  AIR  1975  SC  1900, entertaining the present appeal in the above circumstances would result in a miscarriage of justice as far Respondent No.2, who is yet to be served in this appeal, is concerned.

Keeping, therefore, the question of law urged by the Appellant for decision in some other appropriate case, the Court declines to interfere. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Labour Court so that I.D. Case No.108 of 1996 can resume. The Labour Court is requested to endeavour to dispose of that case as expeditiously as possible.

..................................