AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—With the consent of the learned Counsel on both sides, the matter is heard for final disposal.
The Petitioner was a general worker in the Respondent - Management. His services were dispensed with by an order dated 22.9.86. An application seeking approval u/s 33(2)(b) or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ''the Act''), was filed by the Respondent on 24.9.86 in M.A. 3/1986 i.e., in pending Reference No. 19/1980 before the Labour Court, Bangalore. M.A. 3/86 came to be dismissed for non-prosecution by an order dated 19.2.88. Respondent - Management filed M.A. 1/88 to restore the application filed u/s 33(2)(b) of the Act and the same was dismissed by an order dated 21.2.91. Aggrieved, the Respondent filed W.P. No. 5364/91 which was allowed on 1.1.97 subject to the condition that the Management shall pay the cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the workman within a period of four weeks.
Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.3.07. He filed an application u/s 33(c)(1) of the Act on 10.6.08, upon which, notice was ordered to the Respondent. I.A.2 was filed u/s 11 of the Act by the Petitioner herein for rejection of the said petition on the ground that, the Management has not paid to him the amount of Rs. 5,000/- as ordered on 1.1.1997 in W.P. 5364/91. Statement of objections to I.A.2 having been filed, the Labour Court having found that the cost as ordered by this Court has been paid, finding I.A.2 to be devoid of merit, has dismissed the same on 19.2.09. Aggrieved, the workman has filed this writ petition.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would contend that the cost of Rs. 5,000/- ordered to be paid on 1.1.97 in W.P. No. 5364/91 was not paid and hence, it is not open to the Respondent - Management to prosecute M.A. 1/88 any further, Learned Counsel alternatively contended that, if the cost had been paid, the Management ought to have immediately filed an application in the Labour Court to take up the matter for further consideration and prosecuted the same. Learned Counsel submits that the Management having kept quiet for a long length of time, after the application u/s 33(c)(1) was filed by the workman on 10.6.08, the Management is not justified in coming out with a defence as was put forth to I.A.2.
Smt. K. Subha Ananthi, learned advocate appearing for the Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that, the Management has complied with the order passed on 1.1.97 passed in W.P. 5364/91 i.e., by making payment within the time allowed and hence, there was an obligation on the part of the Labour Court to proceed with the matter as ordered in the writ petition. Learned Counsel submitted that, the mistake if any in not taking up the matter is of the Office of the Labour Court in not posting the case before the Court for consideration and the Management cannot be found fault with. Learned Counsel supported the impugned order.
M.A. 1/88 filed by the Management was dismissed by the Labour Court by an order dated 21.2.91. The said order was questioned by the Management in W.P. 5364/91. By an order dated 1.1.97, the writ petition was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- by the Management to the workman and the order to take effect only in the event of cost being paid within the prescribed period. It was made clear that, if the cost is not paid within the time allowed, the petition shall stand dismissed. The record would indicate that, Sri Kasturi, learned advocate who appeared for the Management informed the Respondent Management on 2.1.97 of the conditional order passed in the writ petition. The document produced as Annexure-J shows that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner. In view of the said document, Labour Court being satisfied that there is compliance of the condition in the order dated 1.1.97 passed in W.P. 5364/91, has rejected I.A.2.
Petitioner has not offered any explanation for the payment made as per Annexure-J. The satisfaction recorded by the Labour Court, in the circumstances, cannot be termed as either irrational or illegal. I.A.2 has rightly been considered and the same being untenable, in view of the payment of `5,000/- to the Petitioner within 4 weeks'' period as directed in the order dated 1.1.97 passed in W.P 5364/91, the impugned order is flawless.
In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. The Labour Court is directed to dispose of the matter pending before it with utmost expedition and at any event, within a period of 3 months from the date a copy of this order is placed on its file. Learned Counsel on both sides shall extend ready co-operation.
Contentions of both parties are kept open for consideration.
Return the LCR to the Labour Court, forthwith.
Parties to appear before the Labour Court on 9.3.11 and receive further orders.
The Labour Court to take up the matter on day-today basis for disposal within the time allowed.