Syed Jalal vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court A.P. Hyderabad and another

Mr. Alladi Kuppu Swami, J.—The petitioner was a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Certain charges were framed against him and an enquiry was held and he was removed from service by an order dated 21-2-73. After unsuccessful appeal to the authorities of the Corporation, he applied to the Government that the dispute may be referred for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the Government referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Hyderabad, the following dispute :- "Whether the removal of Sri Syed Jalal, ex-Conductor (E--41048) from the service by the District Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad Bus Depot is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

Notices were issued to both the parties after registering the reference as 1.D.75/76. The workman on whom the notice was duly served did not appear on 15-6-76 when he was required to file his claim statement. The matter was adjourned to 14-7-76 and on that day also, he did not turn up; nor did he submit his claim statement. The Labour Court, therefore, observing that in the circumstances, it was obliged to draw an inference that he was not interested in the matter and there was no point in keeping the matter pending any longer, closed the matter and passed a ''nil'' award. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the ''nil'' award.

Under Sec. 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act, where an industrial dispute has been referred to a Labour Court, it shall hold its proceedings expeditiously and shall as soon as it is practicable on the conclusion thereof, submit its award to the appropriate Government. Under Rule 12 of the A.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, the parties representing the workman and the employer involved in the dispute shall file with the Labour Court all statement of demands relating the issues only as are included in the order of reference and shall also forward a copy of such statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in the said dispute. Under Rule 12(2), within two weeks of the receipt of the statement referred to in sub-rule (1) the opposite party shall file its rejoinder with the Labour Court and simultaneously forward a copy thereof to the other party. It is seen from a perusal of this rule, that there is an independent obligation on each of the parties viz, the workman and the employer to file claim statement, not depending upon whether the other party has filed a claim statement or not, The procedure is not analogous to a proceeding in a civil court where a plaintiff filed the plaint and thereafter, the defendant files his written statement in answer to the allegations contained in the plaint. In this case, the Labour Court has remarked that the workman did not file his claim statement, but it is also did not file the Statement as required by Rule 12. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Labour Court erred in referring only to the non-filing of the claim statement by the workman and observing that he was not interested in matter. If, by reason of not filing a statement, it is to be concluded that one of the parties to the dispute is not interested in the matter, it would equally follow that the R.T.C. also is not filing the statement could be said to be not interested in the matter. Having regard to the fact that both parties were equally at fault in not filing the statements and in placing the Labour Court in an unenviable position of not being able to proceed with the matter, we consider that the appropriate order to be passed in this case is to set aside the ''nil'' award passed by the Labour Court and direct the Labour Court to enquire into the dispute afresh. The learned advocates of both sides assure this court that the parties whom each of them represents, will file the statement within one month from today before the Labour Court. Meanwhile, this order will be dispatched to the Labour Court. The writ petition is allowed accordingly, but there will be no order as to costs. Before parting with this matter, we wish to emphasise the need for amending the rules suitably in order to cover a situation like the present. If both parties did not take interest in the matter and at the same time, it has held that the Labour Court cannot under the provisions of the Act or the Rules dismiss the matter for default or even make a ''nil'' award we fail to see what else the Labour Court can do in the matter. It would be absolutely helpless in the absence of any material placed by either side. It cannot be argued that it should go on indefinitely adjourning the case until either of the parties chooses to file statement. As a matter of fact a time limit is fixed for submitting its award and it will be contrary to the rules to indefinitely adjourn the matter. We trust and hope that the rules will be amended to cover a situation where one or the other of the parties does not file claim statement or does not participate in the enquiry also when both the parties do not take any interest in the matter.