The Workmen of Sotai Tea Estate vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

C.S. Nayudu, J.

1.This petition is filed under Article 228 of the Constitution questioning the validity of the proceedings of the Labour Court in this case.

It would appear that an industrial dispute having arisen the matter was referred to the Labour Court having jurisdiction for enquiry and making an award. Accordingly the matter came up before the Labour Court, and, it would appear that the present Petitioner did not appear before the Labour Court in spite of having had notice of the date on hearing, and thereupon the Labour Court dealt with the matter as if default had been committed by the Petitioner and purported to dismiss the matter for such default and wait of prosecution. The validity or virus of tins order of the Labour Court is questioned before us in this petition.

A reference to Section 11(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, shows that only in certain matters, specified therein, the Labour Court should act as Civil Court and shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court. This Sub-section (3) runs as follows:

(3) Every Board, Court Labour Court, Tribunal and National Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested is a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1968, when trying a suit, in respect of the following, namely.

(a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

(b) compel hug the production of documents and material objects;

(c) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses;

(d) in respect of such other matters as may be prescribed;

and every inquiry or investigation by a Board, Court Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be deemed to on a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is clear from this section that Order 9 of the CPC has not been included in it, so that under this Sub-section the Labour Court would have no jurisdiction to dismiss a matter for default as a Civil Court acts.

The only question that requires to be considered. whether it has been prescribed in the rules that any such power could be exercised by the Labour Court. Turning to Rule 19 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1917, we find that it runs us follows:

Board, Court or Tribunal may proceed ex parte. If without good cause shown, any party to proceedings before a Board, Court or Tribunal fails to attend or to be represented, the Board, Court or Tribunal may ported as it he had duly attended or had been represented", which implies that the Labour Court in the instant case should have proceeded to deal with and dispose of the matter on diarist as if the defaulting party had in fact attended the Court. To a similar elect is Rule 24 of the Assam Industrial Disputes Rule 1958. Hence, in the circumstances of the instant case, the Labour Court could only have dealt with the matter and-made an award on the merits notwithstanding the absence of the Petitioner, on whatever materials that were made available before it. This conclusion is supported by Section 14 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which reads as follows:

Duties of Labors Courts Section 14 A Court shall inquire into the matters referred to it and report thereon to the appropriate Government ordinarily within a period of six months from the commencement of its inquiry.

So that the making of a report or an award is imperative. No doubt, where one party is absent and the other party is present, the Court may have to act on the materials that are available before it unless it chooses to grant further time to the absenting party to enable him to appear and take part in the proceedings for justifiable reasons, a situation which is contemplated in Rule. 19 of the Central Rules as well as Rule 24 of the Assam Industrial Disputes Rules. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that the order of the Labour Court merely in dismissing the matter for default is not a proper order to make in the circumstances. We feel that in the interests of justice, the matter should be remitted back to the Labour Court with a direction that the Labour Court should laky the matter back to his file an proceed to re-hoar and dispose of the same on its merits. If the Petitioner puts in appearance before the Labour Court should extend an opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case, and affording a similar opportunity to the management, the Labour Court should make on award on the inertias of the cases. In the circumstances of the ease, we make no order as to cost.

S.K. Dutta, J.

I agree