Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 527 (MP)

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Mahesh Bhati

2003-04-09

A.M.SAPRE

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER is a Mandi. Respondent No. 1 was in the employment of the petitioner. His services were dispensed with by the petitioner. This gave rise to making of a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court, Peethampur by the State Government. Accordingly, Labour Court seized of the reference being Reference No. 40/id/reference/2001. Notices were issued to both parties, i. e. , petitioner and respondent No. 1. On being served, the respondent No. 1 participated in the reference and submitted his claim petition praying for setting aside of his termination order on factual as well as legal submissions. The petitioner despite service, did not choose to appear before the Labour Court. ( 2. ) EVENTUALLY by award dated 5-9-2002, the Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the respondent No. 1. It was Held that respondent No. 1 was working with the petitioner w. e. f. 542-1989 continuously and has thus, acquired the status of an employee entitling him to take benefit of all Labour Laws. It was also found that before dispensing with the service of respondent No. 1 on 25-11-2000, no prior charge-sheet was given by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1, nor any inquiry was held on account of misconduct for punishment. It was also held that it was also not a case of legal retrenchment because no prior compensation as contemplated under Section 25 (ff) of the Act has been awarded to the respondent No. 1. It was, therefore, held that it is a case of an illegal retrenchment and hence, respondent No. 1 should be reinstated in service alongwith backwages because respondent No. 1 was not found gainfully employed after his services were dispensed with. ( 3. ) THE petitioner then applied for setting aside of an exparte award by submitting an application on 23-4-2002 inter alia on the ground that they did not have any knowledge of the proceedings. It is this application which came to be rejected by the Labour Court on 12-8-2002 (Annexure P-5) holding that petitioner was duly served with the notice of the reference made to the Labour Court and, therefore, the cause stated in the application can not be said to be sufficient cause. It is against this order, the petitioner hasfelt aggrieved and filed this writ petition. ( 4. It is against this order, the petitioner hasfelt aggrieved and filed this writ petition. ( 4. ) HEARD Shri Vinay Zelawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. ( 5. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused record of the case, I find no substance in the writ petition. In my opinion, it deserves to be dismissed in limine. ( 6. ) THE Labour Court rightly came to a conclusion that no case was made out for setting aside of an exparte award at the instance of the petitioner because they were duly served with the proceedings/summons sent to them by the Labour Court in relation to the reference in question. The acknowledgment received by the Labour Court clearly showed that petitioner had acknowledged the receipt of the summons. Under these circumstances, the question as to whether petitioner had the knowledge of the reference proceedings, has to be answered against the petitioner. ( 7. ) ONCE, it was recorded on the basis of the acknowledgment on record that petitioner was duly served with the summons of the reference proceedings then the stand taken by the petitioner that they did not have the knowledge of the Court proceedings, has to be rejected being false. No other ground was taken in the application, except the one taken supra. It was found to be against the record. In such circumstances, the Labour Court was perfectly justified in not setting aside the award passed against the petitioner. When the petitioner had the knowledge of the proceedings, when they duly received the summons, it was obligatory upon them to have attended the proceedings when fixed. No body prevented them to attend the Court on the date given in the summons. If, they did not appear on the date fixed, they could have appeared on the later date because proceedings before the Labour Court in reference continued for months together. Now to say that they came to know about the Court proceedings only after the award was passed, is an afterthought. ( 8. ) IN my opinion, therefore, cause stated in the application is neither a good cause, nor a sufficient cause. But it is a cause which is found to be false and against the record of the case. No case for interference in such matters is made out either on facts or in law. ( 9. ( 8. ) IN my opinion, therefore, cause stated in the application is neither a good cause, nor a sufficient cause. But it is a cause which is found to be false and against the record of the case. No case for interference in such matters is made out either on facts or in law. ( 9. ) PETITION, thus, fails and is dismissed in limine.