AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Sri Shyam Narain, learned Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Narain, Advocate and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed by M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees Union through its Secretary challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 7.3.2008 passed in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2006 and award dated 8.7.2005 published on 19.12.2005 passed by the Labour Court (2), U.P. Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case No. 346 of 2003 by which the following matter of dispute referred to it for adjudication in exercise of powers u/s 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
D;k lsok;kstdks }kjk vius vkns''k fn0 8-4-2000 }kjk Jfed Jh fodze flag iq= Jh jkeiky flag in&lhfu;j VsfDuf''k;u dks fn;k x;k n.M mfpr ,ao oS/kkfud gS\\ ;fn ugh rks Jfed D;k fgr ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa vU; fooj.k lfgr \\
By the aforesaid award the Labour Court has held that since the cause of action has arisen at the instance of the workmen for adjudication it was their duty to prove their case but they have not done so and have neither even filed their written statements nor have adduced any evidence before the Labour Court. Per-contra, the employers have filed their written statements and also filed the documentary evidence in support of their case. By its award dated 8.7.2005 the Labour Court has held that:
lanHkZkns''k izkfIr ds i''pkr okn iathd`r fd;k x;k rFkk i{kks dks fyf[kr dFku nkf[ky djus gsrq lEeu Hkstk x;k A
fnukad 18-03-2004 dks Jfed i{k mifLFkr gqvk A dbZ volj Jfed i{k dks fyf[kr dFku gsrq fn;k x;k ysfdu Jfed us viuk fyf[kr dFku nkf[ky ugh fd;k Jfed i{k ij lEeu dh rkehy Hkh i;kZIRk gS A
lsok;kstd i{k us viuk fyf[kr dFku nkf[ky fd;k rFkk vfHkys[k nkf[ky ''kiFk i= ds lkFk izLrqr fd;k A
Jfed ds fuosnu ij gh lanHkkZns''k vfHkfu.kZ; gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k] blfy, Jfed dks mifLFkr gksdj vius okn dh iSjoh djuh pkfg, Fkh ysfdu mlus ,slk ugh fd;k Jfed ds ,sls vkpj.k ls Li"V gS fd mls ekeys esa dksbZ :fp ugh gS A vuko'';d :i ls dk;Zokgh dks yfEcr j[kuk U;k;ksfpr ugh gS ,okMZ rnkuqlkj ikfjr Jfed fdlh fgrykHk dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugh gS A
The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had given necessary instructions, authority letter and papers to its representative Sri Dhanpal Singh Tyagi who by mistake kept the same in some other file and did not attend the case as such the case was decided exparte in favour of the employers as aforesaid.
It is also stated that though the award was published on the notice-board on 19.12.2005 it was received by the petitioner Union on 13.2.2006. Thereafter a restoration application along with an affidavit was filed by Sri Dhanpal Singh before the Labour Court on 17.2.2006 and the employers filed their objections to the restoration application. After hearing parties the Labour Court vide order dated 7.3.2008 dismissed the restoration application of the petitioner.
As regards question of delay the Labour Court held:
4- lsok;kstd dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd Jfedx.k us dksbZ i;kZIRk dkj.k viuh vuqifLFkfr ds lEcU/k esa ugh fn;k x;k gS A fnukad 17-01-2006 ds 60 fnu ls T;knk le; iwjs gksus ds i''pkr Jfedx.k dh vksj ls izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;k gSA lsok;kstd dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd Jfedx.k vokMZ dh izfrfyfi fnukad 10-02-2005 dks izkIr dh Fkh fnukad 10-02-2006 dks ugh A
5- lsok;kstd dk dFku ;g gS fd ;fn fdlh frfFk dks Jfedx.k mifLFkr ugh gks lds Fks rks og eqdnes esa ckn dh frfFk;kas ij mifLFkr gks ldrs Fks A Jfedx.k dk ;g dFku fd bl eqdnesa dh tkudkjh vokMZ ikfjr gksus ds ckn iw.kZr;k xyr gS A Jfedx.k us tkucw>dj U;k;ky; eas vkuk cUn fd;k vkSj og ykijokg gS A lsok;kstd dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd Jfedx.k ds izkFkZuk&i= lR;kiu Hkh fof/k vuqdwy ugh gS blfy, Jfedx.k dk izkFkZuk i= vusd fcUnqvks ij =qfViw.kZ gS vkSj fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS A
6- eSus nksusk i{kks ds izfrfuf/k;ks ds rdZ lqus vkSj vfHkfu.kZ; fookn la[;k 346@2003 dh i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k A
7- Jfed i{k dh vksj ls tks ewy izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;k gS vkSj ''kiFk i= layXu fd;k gS og fdlh Hkh Jfed ds }kjk gLrk{kj ;qDr ugh gSA ;g izkFkZuk i= vf/kd`r izfrfuf/k Jh /kuiky flag R;kxh ds }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gSSA bl izkFkZuk i= dk lR;kiu ugh fd;k x;k gS A tcfd ;g loZfofnr gS fd ,slk izkFkZuk i= IyhfMaxl rFkk fiVh''ku dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS A vkSj bl izdkj ds izkFkZuk i= dk lR;kiu gksuk t:jh gS] ysfdu bl izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk layXu ''kiFk i= dk lR;kiu fd;k x;k gS vkSj bl ''kiFk i= dh /kkjk&3 es ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd layXu izkFkZuki= es ;g dgk x;k dFku lgh gS A lR;kfir /kkjk esa fy[kk gS fd lR;kfir fd;k tkrk gS fd ''kiFk Ik= dh /kkjk;s 1 ls 3 esjs Kku o fo''okl es lgh gS A dksbZ dFku vLkR; ugh bZ''oj esjh lgk;rk djs A bl ''kiFk i= ds ek/;e ls esjh jk; es ewy izkFkZuk i= dk lR;kiu fd;k tkuk eku fy;k tkrk gS D;ks bl izkFkZuk i= dk lR;kiu ''kiFk i= ds ek/;e ls fd;k x;k gS bl izdkj Hkh izkFkZuk i= dk lR;kiu fd;k tk ldrk gS blfy, bl lEcU/k esa lsok;sktd dh vkifRr iks"k.kh; ugh gS A
8- Jfedx.k dks ;g rF; Lohdkj gS fd bu izkjEHk esa Hksts x;s lEEku dh rkehy gqbZ A ;g rF; i=koyh ij lEeu dkxt la[;k&2 d ij fy[kh vk[;k ls Hkh iw.kZr;k fl) gks tkrh gS blds vfrfjDr i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd fnukad 18-03-2004 dks nksusk i{k bl eqdnes es U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr Fks blds ckn bl eqdnes es fnukad 20-7-2004] 09-11-2004] 21-02-2005] 01-04-2005 rFkk fnukad 24-05-2005 nksusk i{kks ds izfr okn i= izLrqr djus ds fy, fuf''pr dh x;h A lsok;kstd mijksDr frfFk;ks ij U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksrs jgs ijUrq Jfed dh vksj ls mijksDr ikap frfFk;kssa ij dksbZ mifLFkr ugh gqvk vkSj dksbZ izfrokn i= Hkh izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k A lEeu dkxt la[;k &2d fnukad 22-08-2003 dks tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk A tks Jfed i{k ij O;fDrxr rkehy gqvk Fkk A fnukad 24-05-2005 dks Jfed i{k dk MCyw0,l0 dk vf/kdkj lekIr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj Jfed ds fo:) ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk vkns''k ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk A iquZLFkkiuk izkFkZuk i= 10 Mh fnuakd 17-02-2006 dks is''k fd;k x;k Fkk A tcfd ;w0ih0vkbZ0Mh0 :Yl 1957 dh /kkjk 16�2� ds vuqlkj ;g izkFkZuk i= fnukad 24-05-2005 ds ckn 10 fnu ds vUnj fn;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk tks ugh fn;k x;k A bl izkFkZuk i= nsus esa tks Hkh vkB ekg es T;knk dk foyEc gqvk vkSj bl vR;f/kd foyEc dks {kek djus ds fy, Jfedx.k dh vksj ls fyfeVs''ku vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk &5 ds vUrZxr Hkh bl nsjh dks {kek djus ds fy, dksbZ izkFkZuk i= ugh fn;k x;k A D;ksfd fyfeVs''ku vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&4 ls 24 ykxw ugh gksrh gS A tSlk fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn LVsV vkWQ ;w0ih0 foijhr ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Je U;k;ky; �2� esjB 2005 �105� ,Q0,y0vkj0 ist 391 bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds iSjk&3 es fuf.kZr fd;k x;k A Jfedx.k fnukad 18-03-2004 dks U;k;ky; esa mifLFkfr jgus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ Hkh Li"Vhdj.k ugh fn;k x;k gS fd Jfedx.k fnukad 20-07-2004] 09-11-2004] 21-02-2005] 01-04-2005 rFkk 24-05-2005 dks U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr D;ks ugh gq;s A
9- ;gka ij ;g Li"V djuk vko;''d gS fd ;g ekeyk ,slk ugh gS ftles Jfedx.k ij lEeu dh O;fDrxr rkehy ugh gqbZ vkSj Jfedx.k Hkh U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr ugh gq, A ;fn ,slk gksrk rks oLrqr% fLFkfr nwljh gks ldrh Fkh ysfdu ;gka rks lEeu dh O;fDrxr rkehy gqvk gS vkSj Jfedx.k fnukad 18-03-2004 dks U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gq;s gS tSlk fd fnukad 18-03-2005 dh vkMZj ''khV essa fy[kk gS A ,slk Hkh ugh fd fnukad 20-07-2004 dks igyh gh rkjh[k ij Jfedx.k dh mifLFkfr ds dkj.k muds fo:) ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh gks x;h A cfYd U;k;ky; us fnukad 20-07-2004 ls 24-05-2005 rd Jfedx.k dk bartkj fd;k A
Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up before this Court on the ground that the order dated 7.3.2008 and the award dated 8.7.2005, Anexures-5 and 1 appended to the writ petition respectively are illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said award dated 8.7.2005 is not an award as defined in Sub-Section (c) of Section 2 of the UP. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; that in this view of the matter the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner is still alive and in existence having not been determined finally or even as an interim measure.
The award is also challenged on the ground that the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner has not given any explanation for his absence after 18.3.2004 is against the evidence on record in as much as sufficient and cogent reasons and explanations have been given in the affidavit of Sri Dhan Pal Singh the petitioner''s representative in support of the restoration application; that no appearance of the authorized representative of the petitioner in the proceedings was due to bonafide mistake; and that the question of limitation of 30 days from the date of publication of the award u/s 6-A of the UP. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not arise for the simple reason that the award is illegal and without jurisdiction and is not an award as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act.
''Award'' and ''Industrial Dispute'' have been defined in Section 2(c) and 2(i) of the UP. Industrial Disputes Act as follows:
2(c) ''Award'' means an interim or final determination of any industrial dispute or of any question relating thereto by any Labour Court or Tribunal and includes an Arbitration award made u/s 5-B.
16(b) "Industrial Dispute" has been defined in Section 2(1) of the Act as follows:
2(1) ''Industrial Dispute'' means any dispute or difference employers and employers or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the term of employment or with the conditions of labour, or any person; but does not include an industrial dispute concerning:
(i) any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a Railway Company, or
(ii) such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by Central Government, or
(iii) banking and insurance companies as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or
(iv) a mine or an oil-field;
A conjoint reading of the aforesaid two Sections quoted above shows that the award is final and interim determination of an industrial dispute.
The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shankar Chakravarti Vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and Another, Shankar Chakravarti Vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and Another, Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.
Admittedly, in the present case the workmen have neither filed their written statements nor have produced any oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. Therefore, the test laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases wholly applies to the facts and circumstances of the case as has been noted by the Labour Court in the last paragraph of the award.
As regards limitation the Labour Court while deciding the application of the petitioner in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the award has held that:
10- bl izdkj mijksDrkuqlkj Jfedx.k dh izkFkZuk i= dkQh foyEc ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vkSj bl foyEc dks {kek djus ds fy, /kkjk &5 fyfeVs''ku vf/kfu;e dk dksbZ izkFkZuk i= ugh fn;k x;k Fkk A blfy, ;g izkFkZuk i= fu;ekoyh 1957 dh /kkjk &16�2� ds iw.Zkr;k foijhr gS A lkFk gh lkFk ;gka ;g mYys[k djuk vko;''d gS fd ;g iquZLFkkiuk izkFkZuk i= dh vf/kd`r izfrfuf/k us fn;k vkSj mUgksus viuk ''kiFk i= layXu fd;k A Jfedx.k dh vksj ls mu ;wfu;u dh vksj ls dksbZ Hkh vf/kd`r O;fDr iquZLFkkiuk izkFkZuk&i= ds leFkZu esa ''kiFki= nsus ugh vkrk gSA blls ;g fofnr gksrk gS fd ;wfu;u okys vc Hkh lsk jgs gS vkSj lcdk dk;Zokgh vf/kd`r izfrfuf/k gh dj jgs gS ftles ''kiFki= Hkh lfEefyr gS A
11- Jfedx.k �;wfu;u� dks Lohdkj gS fd ,d Ik{kh; vokMZ fnukad 08-07-2005 dk izdk''ku fnukad 19-12-2005 dks uksfVl cksMZ ij lwpuk dks iznf''kZr djus ds }kjk gqvk A Jfedx.k dk ;g dFku 10&Mh es fy[kk gS A fnukad 19-12-2005 ls 30 fnu dh vof/k ds vUrZxr ,d Ik{kh; vokMZ dks fujLr djkus gsrq fof/kor izkFkZuk i= fn;k tk ldrk gS A ;fn bl vof/k ds i''pkr izkFkZuk i= fn;k gS rks mldk dksbZ lUrku ysus ds fy, Je U;k;ky; l{ke ugh jg tkrh gS A bl lEcU/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn dh fuEufyf[kr fof/k O;oLFkk gS%
1- 2002 �95� ,Q0,y0vkj0 720 LVsV vkWQ ;w0ih0 fojhr ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Je U;k;ky; vkxjk A
2- 1985 �51� ,Q0,y0vkj0 551 mRrj izns''k jkT; fo|qr foijhr vkS|ksfxd U;k;ky;f/kdj.k A
3- 2005 �105� ,Q0,y0vkj0 399 mRrj izns''k jkT; foijhr ihBklhu vf/kdkjh U;k;ky; vkxjk �2� esjB A
4- 2003 �96� ,Q0,y0vkj0 642 f=osMh LV�SDpj fy0 bykgkckn fojhr LVsV vkWQ ;w0ih0 A
5- 2004 �102� ,Q0,y0vkj0 801 ;w0ih0 dksvksijsfVo QsMjs''ku fy0 y[ku� fojhr ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Je U;k;ky; �2� esjB A
6- 2003 �98� ,Q0,y0vkj0 799 e/; izns''k mPp U;k;ky; d`f"k mRiknu eaMh lfefr Fkkj fojhr egs''k HkkVh vkfn A
12- Jfed izfrfuf/k us ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd Jfed i{k fnukad 10-02-2006 dks vokMZ dh izfrfyfi izkIr gqbZ vkSj iquZLFkkiuk izkFkZuk i= fnukad 17-02-2006 dks izLrqr fd;k fd Jfed Ik{k fnukad 10-02-2006 dks vokMZ dh izfrfyfi izkIr gq;h gS vkSj iquZLFkkiuk izkFkZuk i= fnukad 17-02-2006 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k gS A blfy, ;g izkFkZuk i= fnukad 30 fnu ds vUnj izLrqr dj fn;k x;k A ;g Hkh cgl fd;k gS fd bl U;k;ky; dks izkFkZuk i= dks lquus dk {ks=kf/kdkj gS vkSj vokMZ iquZLFkkiuk izkFkZuk&i= nsus rd vafre ugh gqvk Fkk A bl fcUnq ij lsok;kstd izfrfuf/k us ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd U;k;ky; ds }kjk vokMZ ikfjr djus dh lwpuk fnukad 19-12-2005 dks uksfVl cksMZ ij lwpuk ds ek/;e ls iznf''kZr dj nh x;h blfy, vokMZ dk izdk''ku fnukad 19-12-2005 dks gks x;k Fkk vkSj ;g rF; Jfedx.k us Loa; vius izkFkZuk i= esa Lohdkj fd;k gS blfy, 30 fnu dh vof/k fnukad 19-12-2005 ls fxuh tk;sxh A ;g Hkh rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd vokMZ ds izdk''ku dh frfFk nks ugh gks ldrh A lsok;kstd izfrfuf/k dk mijksDr rdZ xyr rFkk vk/kkjghu izrhr ugh gksrk tcfd Jfedx.k Loa; gh ekudj pys gS bl ,d i{kh; vokMZ dk izdk''ku fnukad 19-12-2005 dks gks x;k Fkk A rc Jfedx.k bl LohdkjksfDr dks okfil ugh ys ldrs Jfedx.k dk bl lEcU/k es dFku izkFkZuk i= 10&Mh esa Li"V :i ls fy[kk gqvk gS A bu rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr es vokMZ izdk''ku dh frfFk fnukad 19-12-2005 ekuh tkrh gS tks Jfedx.k dks Loa; Hkh Lohdkj gS fnukad 19-12-2005 ds i''pkr 30 fnu d vUnj izkFkZuk i= ns nsuk pkfg, Fkk ysfdu ugh fn;k x;k A blfy, ;g izkFkZuk i= bl vk/kkj ij dkyckf/kr gks tkrk gS vkSj 30 fnu dh vof/k ds i''pkr U;k;ky; dks ,d Ik{kh dks fujLr djus dk dksbZ {ks=kf/kdkj ugh jg tkrk gS A
13- mijksDr lHkh ds vk/kkj ij Jfed bl iquZLFkkiuk izkFkZuk Ik= 10 Mh fujLr fd;k tkrk gS fofo/k la[;k 4@2006 fujLr fd;k tkrk gS A
The arguments of the counsel may also be tested from the angle of Rule 12(9) read with Rule 16 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1947. Rule 12(9) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 framed under the UP. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that:
12(9) If the affidavit accompanying the written statement of the union or the workmen is not rebutted by the employers, the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, shall presume the contents of the affidavit to be true and make an award accepting the facts stated in the written statement.
The corollary from this rule is that if the affidavit of the employer is also not rebutted by the workman then the contents of the written statement of the employer will also have to be presumed to be correct. This natural corollary flowing from Rule 12(9) of the aforesaid Rules also finds support from the ratio laid down in the case of Choksi Tube Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and Smt. Naseem Bano Vs. State of U.P. and others, and a stream of other decisions rendered by the Apex Court.
Rule 16 provides that Labour Court or Tribunal or Arbitrator may proceed exparte and if, on the date fixed or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, any party to the proceeding before the Labour Court or Tribunal or an Arbitrator is absent, though duly served with summons or having the notice of date hearing, the Labour Court or Tribunal or the Arbitrator, as the case may be, may proceed with the case in his absence and pass such order as it may deem fit and proper.
Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 16 provides that the Labour Court, Tribunal or an Arbitrator may set aside the order passed against the party in his absence, if within ten days of such order, the party applies in writing for setting aside such order and shows sufficient cause for his absence.
Sub Rule(2) is as under:
The Labour Court, Tribunal or an Arbitrator may set aside the order passed against the party in his absence, if within ten days of such order, the party applies in writing for setting aside such order and shows sufficient cause for his absence. The Labour Court, Tribunal or an Arbitrator may require the party to file an affidavit stating the cause of absence. As many copies of the application and affidavit, if any, shall be filed by the party concerned as there are persons on the opposite side. Notice of the application shall be given to the opposite parties before setting aside the order.
This Court has also in the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, U.P. Agra and Ors. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54914 of 2004 decided on 7th October, 2005 held that once the award is published it can not be set aside on the ground of limitation that after 30 days of publication; that Section 6-A of the Act providing that the award will become enforceable filed after 30 days. In view of the laws referred to above the award attains its finality after 30 days of publication and therefore as nothing further can be done even an exparte award is final determination of the dispute under reference thereafter.
Admittedly, in the present case neither the application for restoration or recall has been made within 10 days under Rule 16(2) of the Rules nor within 30 days of publication. Admittedly the application for setting aside was moved after 30 days of the enforcement of the award u/s 6-A of the Act, therefore, it has attained its finality and it can not be said that the reference has not been determined. It may be that the reference may not have been adjudicated on merit but the dispute has certainly attained its finality. In the circumstances, therefore, the award rendered by the Labour Court and published u/s 6-A of the Act is an award as defined u/s 2(c) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For all the aforesaid reasons stated above and in view of the law referred above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.