Manjit Tannery v. Labour Court, U. P — 1972 DIGILAW 227 (ALL)

ORDER H.N. Seth, J. - Messrs Maniit Tannery, a partnership firm, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that an award dated 26th June, 1969 made by the Labour Court Meerut and published in the U. P. Gazette dated 14th March, 1970 be quashed and that a direction be issued to the Labour Court to make a fresh award after giving an opportunity to the petitioner for being heard. 2. The petitioner carries on the business of preparing leather in the name of Manjit Tannery Meerut and its factory is registered under the Factories Act. It terminated the services of a number of its workmen. This gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court at Meerut for adjudication. The Labour Court at Meerut issued summons to the employer and the workmen to appear before it and to file their written statements etc. In response to the summons issued by the Labour Court, the employer failed to appear before the Court, but the workmen appeared and moved the Court to defer adjudication for some time so that they may move the State Government for modifying the dispute referred by it. The workmen succeeded in getting the dispute referred by the State Government modified. After that State Government referred the modified dispute to the petitioner fixing 7th of May 1969 as the date for filing written statement, On 7th May 1969 the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was on leave. According to the petitioner its Munim appeared before the Court on that date but the workmen deny this fact and allege that on that date no one appeared on behalf of the employer even though summons had been duly served. However, on 7th of May, 1969, reader of the Labour Court made the following endorsement on the order that:- "None appears on behalf of the employers. Nor their written statement has been received. The service of the summons is sufficient. The Presiding Officer is on leave. The file shall be put up on his return." 3. After the Presiding Officer returned from leave the file was put up before him on May 26, 1969. On that date he passed the following order:- "Workmen filed the written statement. None appears on behalf of the employers. Nor their written statement has been received. The file shall be put up on his return." 3. After the Presiding Officer returned from leave the file was put up before him on May 26, 1969. On that date he passed the following order:- "Workmen filed the written statement. None appears on behalf of the employers. Nor their written statement has been received. Service of the summons on the employers is sufficient. The case, therefore, is proceeded with in the absence of the employers and for ex parte evidence on behalf of the workmen, 9th of June 1969 is fixed." The case was heard on 9th of June 1969 in the absence of the employer. Thereafter, on 9-7-1969. the Labour Court submitted its award dated 26-6-1969 to the State Government for publication. The petitioner approached the State Government and made an application stating that although summons had been served upon it no appearance on its behalf could be put in before the Labour Court, as its Manager was out of station in connection with a serious illness of his uncle. On his return, when he approached the Labour Court for the next date of hearing he was told that the case had been decided ex parte. It was therefore, requested that the award may be remitted to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication. The State Government acting under section 6 (3) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act remitted the award to the Labour Court for reconsideration. While remitting the award, the State Government did not indicate the purpose for which it was remitting it to the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court, on 9th of February 1970, returned the award to the State Government with a note that after going through the evidence it did not find anything in the evidence on the basis of which it could take a different view of the matter. The employers had absented themselves from the very beginning. In the circumstances the award already made stood and the same was being returned to the State Government. Before sending back the award, the Labour Court did not hear either the employer or the workmen. The State Government published the award as required by the Industrial Disputes Act, on 14th of March, 1970. The petitioner applied to the Labour Court for setting aside the ex parte award on 29th of April 1970. Before sending back the award, the Labour Court did not hear either the employer or the workmen. The State Government published the award as required by the Industrial Disputes Act, on 14th of March, 1970. The petitioner applied to the Labour Court for setting aside the ex parte award on 29th of April 1970. Before any orders could be made on that application it approached this Court by means of present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pressed the petition primarily on two grounds:- (1) The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to take ex parte proceedings on 26th May, 1969 and the following dates without communicating information about those dates to the petitioner, and (2) After the State Government remitted the award to the Labour Court for reconsideration it was obligatory upon the Labour Court to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner for being heard. 5. So far as the first ground of attack is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to rule 16 of the Industrial Disputes Rules which provides that if on the date fixed or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned any party to the proceedings before the Labour Court is absent though duly served with summons or having notice of the date of hearing, the Labour Court may proceed with the case in his absence and pass such order as it may deem fit and proper. He contends that an order for proceeding ex parte could be made against the petitioner on 26th of may, 1969 only if it was a date fixed in the case or it was a date to which hearing had been adjourned. According to him, 26th of May 1969 was neither a date fixed in the case nor was it a date to which the hearing had been adjourned. Moreover, the Labour Court never informed the petitioner that the case had been fixed for 26th May, 1969 or for any other subsequent date. In the circumstances the petitioner could not appear before the Labour Court between 7th of may 1969 and 4th of July 1969, when the ex parte award was made. 6. Moreover, the Labour Court never informed the petitioner that the case had been fixed for 26th May, 1969 or for any other subsequent date. In the circumstances the petitioner could not appear before the Labour Court between 7th of may 1969 and 4th of July 1969, when the ex parte award was made. 6. Learned counsel for the workmen on the other hand, strenuously contended that summons issued by the Labour Court requiring the petitioner to appear and file its written statement on 7th of may 1969 had been duly served upon it. The petitioners never cared to appear before the Labour Court. After summons issued by the Labour Court for 7th of may 1969 had been served, it was for the petitioner to keep a track of subsequent dates fixed in the case. If it did not do so, it was itself to be blamed for it. In case the petitioner wished to get an ex parte order passed against it set aside, it should have moved the Labour Court within ten days of the order as provided in Rule 16 (2) of the Rules. 7. After the Industrial Dispute is referred to a Labour Court, it has to send information to the parties concerned requiring them to appear before it. According to Rule 10 summons issued by a Labour Court is to be in form VI requiring a party to appear before it on a particular date in order to answer all material questions relating to the dispute-and to produce all papers, books etc. that are in its possession which concern the-dispute referred to the Court. The summons further requires the party concerned to file its written statement on the date mentioned in it 7th of may 1969 was such a date fixed by the summons issued in the case. Rule 13 requires that sittings of the Labour Court are to be held at such times and places as the presiding Officer may fix. He has however, to inform the parties about the time and place of sittings in such manner as he thinks fit. This rule clearly envisages; that the Labour Court has to keen the parties concerned informed about the time and place of its sitting. The manner in which this information is to be given to the parties is for the Labour Court to decide. This rule clearly envisages; that the Labour Court has to keen the parties concerned informed about the time and place of its sitting. The manner in which this information is to be given to the parties is for the Labour Court to decide. It may be that if a party who has been informed about the time and place of sitting as required by Rule 13, absents itself the Court may make an order under Rule 16 directing that case to proceed ex parte and in that event it may not be necessary for the Court to give any further notice about its subsequent sitting to the party concerned. (I however refrain from expressing any definite opinion on the fro-orient of adopting such a procedure). But such an order, if at all can be passed only on a date fixed for the sitting of the court and about which information has been given to the party concerned. 8. In the present case 7th of may 1969 was a date fixed for sitting of the Labour Court and all the parties concerned including the petitioner had information about that date. However, on that date the presiding Officer did not attend the court as he was on leave. Order sheet of the case shows that thereafter no date was fixed for next sitting of the Labour Court till 26th of may 1969. It is not disputed that Labour Court did not give any information of this date (26-5-1969) to the petitioner. It was neither a date fixed in the case nor was it a date to which hearing of the case had been adjourned by the presiding Officer. In the circumstances it was not possible for the Labour Court to make an order under Rule 16 directing further proceedings in the case to be taken in the absence of the employer. It could not proceed to take the evidence of the workmen on 9th of June, 1969, without informing the employer about it. In view of the specific provisions of R. 13. which require that it is for the presiding Officer to inform the parties concerned about the time and place of sittings of the Court in such a manner as it thinks fit. In view of the specific provisions of R. 13. which require that it is for the presiding Officer to inform the parties concerned about the time and place of sittings of the Court in such a manner as it thinks fit. I am unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the workmen that once the summons for 7-5-1969 was duly served upon the employer and that even though the case has been adjourned on that date without fixing any other date, it was for the employer to keep track of the date that may be fixed by the Labour Court at some future uncertain time. Award made by the Labour Court without communicating the [date of hearing, fixed in the case, to the petitioner is therefore in contravention of the specific provisions contained in Rule 13 of the Industrial Disputes Rules. The procedure adopted in the case also violated the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court, therefore could not make an award in the absence of the petitioner. Such an award by the Labour Court is therefore vitiated and is liable to be set aside. 9. The question of moving the Labour Court under Rule 16 for setting aside an ex parte order within a period of ten days arises only in cases where the party concerned has been informed about the date fixed in the case and in spite of it fails to appear before the Labour Court on that date. I am therefore not impressed by the argument raised on behalf of the workmen that in this case the proper remedy of the petitioner was to move an application for setting aside ex parte order under R. 16. 10. In this view of the matter it is not necessary for me to consider the second argument urged on behalf of the petitioner. 11. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The award of the Labour Court dated 26th of June 1969. published in the U. P. Gazette dated March 14, 1970 is quashed. The Labour Court will now proceed to decide the Industrial Dispute referred to it after giving in-formation to the parties concerned about the time and place of its sittings. Since the matter has been pending for quite some time it is desirable that the Labour Court should proceed to decide this dispute expeditiously. The Labour Court will now proceed to decide the Industrial Dispute referred to it after giving in-formation to the parties concerned about the time and place of its sittings. Since the matter has been pending for quite some time it is desirable that the Labour Court should proceed to decide this dispute expeditiously. In the circumstances of the case I direct the parties to bear their own costs.