Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1597 (RAJ)

Shrawan Lal Kharol v. Judge, Labour Court

2005-05-30

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-This petition is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 07th May, 2004, whereby the learned Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur rejected the application preferred by the petitioner under Rule 22-A of the Rajasthan Industrial Dispute Rules, 1965. The learned Labour Court by the award dated 25th February, 2003 instead of refusing the reference, passed a No Dispute Award with regard to the petitioners. 2. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pappu Ram vs. Labour Court, Jodhpur, reported in 2005 (3) RDD-page 515 held that the Labour Court is required to answer the reference made to it and no "No Dispute Award can be passed. In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench of this Court held as under:- "Thus, when an appropriate Government makes a reference to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court under Section 10 (1) (c) it seeks opinion on an industrial dispute referred to it. The Tribunal is required to adjudicate on the dispute after taking necessary evidence and hearing the parties. Such an opinion is expressed in the form of ward which becomes final only after its publication by the appropriate Government under Section 17 of the Act. Once the award becomes final, it cannot be altered or modified by the parties, Sub-section (8) of Section 10 lays down that by reason of the death of a workman who was a party to an industrial dispute pending adjudication before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, the proceedings before such adjudicatory authority will not affect. Thus, it is evident that an industrial dispute cannot be closed even by reason of death of a workman. Thus, the provision implies that the effective hearing of dispute must continue despite the death of one of the parties and an order on merit of the rival contentions should be pronounced and that in award dismissing the reference or rejected the claim simplicitor should be passed by reason of death. It must not be forgotten that the Industrial Dispute Act has been enacted with an object to provide provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes which means adjudication of such disputes also. The powers of the authority deciding the industrial dispute under the Act are very extensive much wider than the power of civil Court while adjudicating a dispute which may be industrial dispute. The powers of the authority deciding the industrial dispute under the Act are very extensive much wider than the power of civil Court while adjudicating a dispute which may be industrial dispute. A reference be made to The Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlakar Shantaram Wader & Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC page 2238. Thus, a Tribunal cannot answer an award made by appropriate Government under Section 10 (1) (c) in the name of no industrial dispute award. The reference proceedings does not abate even on the death of workman what to talk of absence of workman. Thus, it is obligatory on a Labour Court or a Tribunal to answer reference made under Section 10 (1) (c) on merit after proper adjudication. It is for the Tribunal to evolve its own procedure in conformity with the rules and exercise the power vested with it to make an award on the basis of material available on record. The Court or the Tribunal with a view to settle the industrial dispute keeping in mind the sense of doing complete justice to the parties concern, may obtain additional material, if so required. 3. In view of the Judgment of this Court, the award passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur dated 25th February, 2003 to the extent it relates to the petitioner is illegal. In view of it, the award impugned dated 25th March, 2003 is quashed to the extent it relates to the petitioner. The order dated 07th March, 2004 rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1965 is also quashed. The Labour Court, Jodhpur is directed to decide the industrial dispute with regard to the petitioner afresh within a period of three months from the date, the petitioner submits a certified copy of this order. 4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.