Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 173 (AP)

O. RAJA REDDY v. PRESIDING OFFICER

2000-03-09

S.R.NAYAK

body2000
ORDER : 1. Alas! But for the anonymous complaint received by the Registry of this Court a reprehensible mischief committed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad who held that office between 6-5-1996 and 31-7-1997 should have gone unnoticed resulting in injury to the public interest and tarnishing the image of the apparatus of the industrial adjudication. 2. I do not think it appropriate for the Court to record in this order the steps taken by the High Court on administrative side to unearth the serious and reprehensible lapses committed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. Suffice it to state that the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court-II, Hyderabad passed the docket orders in the following 18 industrial disputes on the dates shown against each of the industrial disputes. S. No. Industrial Disputes No. Date of Passing 1. 28/93 16-6-1997 2. 16/95 16-6-1997 3. 29/96 16-6-1997 4. 99/93 2-7-1997 5. 83/94 2-7-1997 6. 45/96 2-7-1997 7. 187/93 4-4-1997 8. 58/96 3-7-1997 9. 101/93 4-7-1997 10. 81/94 4-7-1997 11. 7/96 4-7-1997 12. 12/95 24-7-1997 13. 83/93 25-7-1997 14. 111/93 25-7-1997 15. 199/93 25-7-1997 16. 82/94 25-7-1997 17. 87/94 25-7-1997 18. 97/96 25-7-1997 3. The High Court secured the files of the above 18 industrial disputes supposed to have been disposed of by the learned Presiding Officer on the dates mentioned above and on perusal of the same, the High Court, on administrative side, found that in industrial disputes from S. No. 1 to 6 draft awards were prepared, but not signed by the learned Presiding Officer, and in the remaining 12 Industrial Disputes from S.Nos.7 to 18 noted above, draft awards were not prepared. Even though the awards were claimed to have been dictated and taken by the typist in long hand, the so-called awards in all the 18 cases, some of which were transcribed by the typist in manuscripts are in incomplete form and many of the sentences in the award are not legible. The awards and orders are perfunctory and devoid of reasons. Even some blanks are not filled up. In that view of the matter, the High Court on administrative side, took a decision to review the awards made by the learned Presiding Officer in the above noted 18 industrial disputes. The awards and orders are perfunctory and devoid of reasons. Even some blanks are not filled up. In that view of the matter, the High Court on administrative side, took a decision to review the awards made by the learned Presiding Officer in the above noted 18 industrial disputes. Hon'ble The Chief Justice was authorised by the High Court to nominate a Judge to exercise the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, Hon'ble The Chief Justice directed these industrial disputes to be placed before me to take necessary steps under Article 227 of the Constitution to review the awards made by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. 4. Initially, the Registry registered only one civil revision petition, i.e., CRP No.4711 of 1998 in pursuance of the DO letter No.172, dated 31-12-1997 received by the High Court from the learned Presiding Officer, labour Court-II, Hyderabad who was a successor in office to the learned Presiding officer, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, who passed above 18 awards. CRP No.4711 of 1998 was posted before this Court and this Court, directed the Registry to give separate civil revision petition number against the award made in each of the industrial disputes. Accordingly, the Registry gave separate civil revision petition number in respect of the award made in each of the industrial disputes. In the mean while, Writ Petition No.23693 of 1998 was filed by the workman-party to ID No.29 of 1996 seeking a direction to the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad to pass the award complaining that the learned Presiding Officer heard the arguments on 22-5-1997 and reserved the case for passing the award. That writ petition was also ordered to be clubbed and heard together with the suo motu initiated civil revision petitions. CRP No.4711 of 1998 is not registered against any award, but the Registry has wrongly registered it against the DO letter written by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. Therefore, CRP No.4711 of 1998 is struck off as misconceived. 5. In the course of pendency of the writ petition and civil revision petitions, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners highlighted the serious lapse committed by the learned Presiding Officer and submitted that they could have been avoided if there were appropriate regulations governing the procedure to be followed by the Industrial Courts in passing and pronouncing the awards. 5. In the course of pendency of the writ petition and civil revision petitions, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners highlighted the serious lapse committed by the learned Presiding Officer and submitted that they could have been avoided if there were appropriate regulations governing the procedure to be followed by the Industrial Courts in passing and pronouncing the awards. Therefore, (he Court requested the learned Advocate-General to appear and assist the Court in these cases. Accordingly, the learned Advocate-General appeared and submitted that the Government itself is proposing to bring necessary amendments to Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act governing preparation of the awards and the procedure for pronouncement of the awards in the open Court, instead of the present practice of forwarding the awards to the appropriate Government for publication. The Court's appreciation of the assistance rendered by the learned Advocate-General is placed on record. 6. Coming to the 18 impugned awards passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-11, Hyderabad, I should state, as pointed out supra, they are totally perfunctory and almost reasonless. I have perused the awards. They are stereotype, proforma awards. Even the reasoning parts of the awards also are in proforma. The mere fact that the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad has subscribed his signature on those rough awards or order papers does not impart sanctity to them as enforceable awards. It seems that the learned Presiding Officer in his anxiety to pass as many awards as possible just before laying down of his office with effect from 1-8-1997 has created an inexcusable mess and acted in a manner unbecoming of a senior Judicial Officer. Industrial adjudication is a solemn function to be performed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals to render timely justice to the hapless and weaker sections of work force who seek legal redresses and reliefs. Their claims have to be dealt with most responsibly, and on the basis of individual merits of the applicant who seek the relief. Standardising the reasoning and the relief is obnoxious to the ethos of any adjudication and reflects dishonesty on the part of the adjudicator. 7. Justice should be done and at the same time it should be seen to have been done is a cardinal principle of natural justice and basic ethos of any adjudication. Standardising the reasoning and the relief is obnoxious to the ethos of any adjudication and reflects dishonesty on the part of the adjudicator. 7. Justice should be done and at the same time it should be seen to have been done is a cardinal principle of natural justice and basic ethos of any adjudication. The method and the procedure adopted by the learned Presiding Officer in disposing of the above 18 industrial disputes does not inspire confidence in the litigant public or in the mind of this Court. Added to this, in terms of substance also, the Court does not find any valid reasons given by the learned Presiding Officer for the conclusions arrived at by him in passing the awards. It is quite fair that the learned Counsel who appeared for the parties in these cases also lived up to the expectations of the high standard of industrial adjudication and appropriately submitted that these awards could not stand the legal scrutiny and that the ends of justice required that the High Court should intervene by virtue of the power granted to it under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and set aside the impugned awards and remand the proceedings to the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad to dispose of the industrial disputes de novo after giving reasonable opportunity to all the parties. In my considered opinion also, that is (he proper way to do to meet the ends of justice. 8. In the result, the writ petition and the civil revision petitions are allowed and the impugned award in the writ petition and in each of the civil revision petitions are set aside. The proceedings shall stand remanded to the Labour Court-11, Hyderabad. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad is directed to dispose of these 18 industrial disputes as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months, after giving reasonable opportunity to lead the evidence wherever required. The Registry is directed to return all the records secured from the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad to it forthwith. No costs.