Nabin Seth vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

A.S. Naidu, J.—Heard.

Petitioner is Management of Bargarh Municipality. A labour dispute arose with regard to refusal of employment to one Jadumani Sahu, opposite party No. 2, w.e.f. 12.4.1997. The dispute was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court by the State Government in exercise of the powers under Sections 10 and 12 of the I.D. Act which was registered as I.D. Case No. 4/2002.

The Management filed written statement, but then thereafter chose not to appear. The award was passed on 30.4.2004. The writ petition has been filed two years after with a prayer to set aside the award and remit the matter back to the Labour Court for further hearing. It is submitted that due to certain inadvertent reasons, the petitioner could not appear in Court and take part in the hearing. But then, as to whether there was sufficient reason prohibiting the petitioner for taking part in the hearing is a pure question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction.

Confronted with such position, learned Counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this writ petition seeking liberty to the petitioner to file a petition before the Labour Court for setting aside an ex parte order. Considering the said submission I dispose of the writ application giving liberty to the petitioner to file a suitable petition before the Court below, if so advised, and I direct the Court below in such event to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. To avoid prejudice to the parties, I further direct the Labour Court that if a petition for restoration is filed within three weeks hence, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously. Till disposal of the said petition, no coercive action shall be taken.