AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Heard learned advocate Shri TR Mishra for the petitioner in all the petitions. Shri Mishra seeks permission to delete Respondent No. 3 and gives up Prayer No. 6(C) of the memo of the petition, with a liberty to take out appropriate proceedings and without making submissions on merits at this stage. Permission as sought for is granted. Respondent No. 3 stands deleted in all the petitions. As well prayer No. 6(C) of all the petitions also stand deleted.
Rule. Shri Ashish Shah, learned advocate with Shri Jinesh Kapadia waives service of notice of rule for the respondents in all the petitions.
In this group of petitions while issuing notice on 9/9/2009 the Court had indicated that the notices were issued for final disposal that were made returnable on 23/9/2009. Matters were adjourned thereafter and ultimately on 1/10/2009 submissions were over and they were kept for orders on 5/10/2009, i.e. today.
Learned advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions has placed on record the details of the petitioner in these petitions which is required to be reproduced as under:
Sr. No.
Petition No. and Name of the petitioner
Dt. of termi- nation
Dt. of award
Dt. of filing S.C.
Dt. of filing W.S.
Evide-nce in the form of affida-vit recor-ded
Dt. of appli-cation for produ-ction of docu- ments
Dt. on which order on produ- ction of docu-ments passed
Rem-arks
1.
Rajuben Vajubhai Dodiya (Vajubhai Chinabhai died on 7/6/2006) (Typogra-phical error, instead of �Vajubhai� ''Vanubhai'' is typed) SCA No. 9592/2009
17/4/ 2002
13/5/ 2009
11/4/ 2001
Co.3/ 03. Contr-actor no dt.
15/4/ 2009. Common affidavit of Vaju-bhai Hamirbhai Mori. Cross examination over on 15/4/ 2009
15/1/ 2003
Order passed for produ-ction of docu-ments on 1/3/ 2004
Docu-ments not produ-ced.
2.
Gaturbhai Bhagwan-bhai Zala. SCA No. 9593/2009
17/4/ 2000
15/4/ 2009
11/4/ 2001
Co. filed WS, o3, Contractor o2.
21/12/ 2001 Cross examination completed on 15/2/ 2006
15/1/ 2003
Order passed on 15/1/ 2003. Reply or comply
No docu-ments produ-ced. No reply.
3.
Bhupat-bhai Dodia SCA No. 9594/2009
17/4/ 2000
16/5/ 2009
11/4/ 2001
Co. o3 contractor 16/4/ 2003
Ex. 15 21/12/2001
15/1/ 2003 Recei-ved by Co. on 15/1/ 2003
15/1/ 2003 reply or comply
Co. started cross examination and after few minu-tes asked adjournment. Matter adjourned. No further cross examination.
4.
Jiasing bhai Karsan bhai Chavlani SCA No. 9595/2009
17/4/ 2000
14/5/ 2009
11/4/ 2001
Co.3/ 03 Contractor No date
6/9/ 2006 / 10/1/ 2007 cro-ssed on 11/2/ 2009
15/1/ 2003
Order on 15/1/ 2003
Documents not produ-ced nor replied.
From the aforesaid facts it becomes clear that though the individual orders have been passed, said orders are identical so far as its substances are concerned and therefore all the matters are heard together and are decided & disposed of by this Common Judgment & Order.
The petitioners workmen have filed this group of petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order in award passed on the dates mentioned in the award rejecting the same, on the reasons mentioned there under.
Brief facts leading to filing of these petitions are required to be set out as under.
The petitioners came to be terminated on 17/4/2000. Termination was brought about without following due procedure of law and hence industrial dispute was raised which was referred to the competent Court, wherein it was marked as References and taken up for hearing. The evidences were taken and the Court without taking into consideration request for adjournment and as per the statement made by the petitioners in the petitions, passed order without affording an opportunity to the workmen on a specious plea of passing expeditious orders in individual reference. The references have been rejected, hence being aggrieved by the order in award impugned petitioners have filed present petitions challenging those awards.
Shri Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in this group of petitions relying upon the averments in the petitions contended that the Labour Court has not afforded opportunity to the workmen. Procedure prescribed for conducting references is not taken into consideration and relying upon the observations of the Court made in the judgment which was not applicable to the facts & circumstances of the case, passed order rejecting references, therefore same are required to be quashed and set aside. Shri Mishra submitted that the references could not have been decided the way they have been decided and therefore in the fitness of things the matters are required to be remanded for deciding the same on merits after affording due opportunity to the parties.
Shri Ashish Shah with Shri Jinesh Kapadia, learned advocates appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 respectively contended that under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, there is no provision requiring parties to give closing purshish for indicating that they were no more interested in leading evidence and therefore contention of the other side with regard to non-availability of closing purshish or without waiting for closing purshish from the workman concerned, the references were decided, has no relevance. Advocate for the petitioner side also not pointed out as to what further evidence they were desirous of leading before the Labour Court. It is contended that upon the evidence available on record, Labour Court considered the same and passed the order.
This Court heard learned advocates for the parties and perused records of the case. This Court perused decision of the Labour Court for justifying the disposal of the matter in absence of the workmen. Disposal in this fashion, to say the least is perfunctory and leaves much room to be commented upon. Workers application for production of documents had been allowed and in absence of any document produced, provision of law with regard to adverse opinion was required to be pressed into service. Labour Court has not addressed itself entirely to this issue and passed order without appreciating the say of the workmen. The principle of affording hearing dictates even the Courts to afford reasonable opportunity to both the sides and looking to the impugned award, I am of the opinion that Labour Court has ignored the bounden principle and passed the order contrary to the material on record. Therefore the award & order impugned in this group of petitions are deserved to be quashed and set aside and they are accordingly quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute to the said extent in each of the petition. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a consequence thereof, the matters are remanded for deciding the same on merits. The Labour Court, Junagadh after receiving writ of this order, shall decide the same in accordance with law, after affording full opportunity of being heard to both the sides and permitting them to lead respective evidence in each matter.
Registry to maintain copy of this judgment and order in each petition.