Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 205 (RAJ)

Pappu Ram v. The Labour Court, Jodhpur

2005-01-24

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2005
Judgment N.N. Mathur & Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21st February, 2004 dismissing the writ petition. 2. A reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) for adjudication of a dispute in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act on the question of termination of the services of the appellant-workman. The Tribunal issued a notice to the appellant fixing the date of hearing 15.1999 but neither the appellant nor his representative put his appearance on that day or any subsequent dates. Thus, the Tribunal by order dated 111.1999 passed no dispute award. The appellant-workman filed an application for restoration of the reference, but the same was dismissed by order dated 10.2002. The appellant challenged the said order and the award by way of petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In support of the contention to the effect that the Tribunal instead of adjudicating the dispute referred could not have closed the matter simply by expressing its inability to record the finding saying "no dispute award" has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Virendra Bhandari vs. R.S.R.T.C. & Ors., reported in JT 2002 (5) SC 21. The learned Single Judge distinguished the Virendra Bhandaris case on the ground that after passing of "no dispute award" by the Labour Court the Government made another reference on the same question, whereas, in the instant case no such reference was again made by the State Government. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the impugned order, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. In Virendra Bhandaris case the Apex Court has in terms held that when there is no adjudication on merit it cannot be said that the industrial dispute does not exist. Court further observed thus:- "What is to be borne in mind in proceedings of this nature is that the Industrial disputes are referred to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal for maintenance of Industrial peace and not merely for adjudication of the dispute between two private parties". 4. Court further observed thus:- "What is to be borne in mind in proceedings of this nature is that the Industrial disputes are referred to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal for maintenance of Industrial peace and not merely for adjudication of the dispute between two private parties". 4. The learned Single Judge has erroneously distinguished the binding decision of the Apex Court in Virendra Bhandaris case on the ground that in the said case after the Tribunal made "no dispute award", second reference was made by the State Government. The ratio laid down in the said case is that once the reference is made to the Tribunal it has to be answered on merit. There is nothing like "no dispute award". The learned Single Judge has lost sight in considering that the Tribunal was in error in closing the reference without adjudication of the dispute referred by the State Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. .5. Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act empower the appropriate Government to refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute if it relates to any matter specified in Second Schedule to a Labour Court for adjudication. The word reference has not been defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, in order to understand the exact meaning of reference we may look to the dictionary meaning. 6. As per the Concise Oxford Dictionary the word reference means:- "the referring of a matter for decision or settlement or consideration to some authority". 7. In Blacks Law Dictionary reference means:-"A person to whom a cause pending in a Court has referred by the Court, to take testimony, hear the parties, and report thereon to the Court". 8. In Law of Lexicon of British India complied by Ramnatha Aiyer, reference has been stated to mean:-"Sending of pending case for some question therein by the Court in which it is pending to a private person or some other Tribunal to hear and determine the cause of the question". 9. 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. 9. 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 award 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 rejecting 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. 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 noindustrialdispute 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 a 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. Thus, it is obligatory on a Labour Court or a Tribunal to answer a 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. 10. Consequently, the special appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 21st February, 2004 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The "no dispute award" dated 111.1999 and the order dated 10.2002 passed by the Tribunal are quashed and set aside. The Tribunal shall adjudicate the reference on merit. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Jodhpur on 18.2.2005.