Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 845 (RAJ)

Abhay Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-03-17

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Honble VYAS, J.–The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned award dtd. 7.8.2001 (Annex. 4) and order dtd. 21.11.2002 (Annex. 6) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (2). Brief facts of the case are that against the termination of his services, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer vide application dtd. 21.4.1999. The conciliation proceedings failed and failure report was submitted by the conciliation officer to the Appropriate Government. (3). The appropriate Government made a reference to the Labour Court, Jodhpur vide notification dtd. 24.11.1999. (4). On reference, notices were issued to the petitioner. On 10.1.2001, on behalf of the petitioner his counsel put in appearance and sought time to file claim. He continued to appear till 24.4.2001, but the claim petition was not filed. Thereafter on 3.7.2001 and 7.8.2001, neither the counsel appeared nor he filed claim petition on behalf of the petitioner, on which the learned Labour Court passed no dispute award on 7.8.2001 (Annex. 4). (5). After passing of no dispute award dtd. 7.8.2001, the counsel for the petitioner submitted an application under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 for restoration of the claim case. (6). The learned Labour Court vide order dtd. 21.11.2002 (Annex. 6) rejected the application filed by the petitioner. (7). In the instant petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the counsel for the petitioner was operated for his disease in his teeth and the doctor has advised him to take rest. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner could not appear before the Labour Court on 7.8.2001. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that for the fault on the part of the petitioner, the litigant should no be made to suffer. (8). None appeared for the respondents despite service. (9). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and scanned and examined the material on record. (10). In the instant petition, the application under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 was filed on 22.3.2002, but no one put in appearance on behalf of the Municipal Board and in such circumstances, ultimately on 23.7.2002, exparte proceedings were initiated against the respondents. (11). (10). In the instant petition, the application under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 was filed on 22.3.2002, but no one put in appearance on behalf of the Municipal Board and in such circumstances, ultimately on 23.7.2002, exparte proceedings were initiated against the respondents. (11). The application submitted by the petitioner before the learned Court below has been supported by the affidavit of his counsel appearing before the trial Court, in which it has clearly been stated that on account of operation of his teeth, he could not appear before the Labour Court as he was advised rest. (12). It is settled proposition of law that for the fault of the counsel, poor litigants should not be made to suffer on technical grounds. The Act of 1947 is a benevolent legislation and on more technicalities or on account of fault on the part of the counsel for the workman, the workman should not be made to suffer. In the interest of justice, the matter should be decided on merits and should not be thrown out on technical grounds. The learned Labour Court has not considered this aspect of the matter in correct perspective. (13). For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is allowed. The award dtd. 7.8.2001 (Annex. 4) and order dtd. 21.11.2002 (Annex. 6) are quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Labour Court. The petitioner is directed to file claim petition within one month from today and the learned Labour Court is directed to decide the same on merits in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. (14). With the above observations, the present writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.