Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 433 (RAJ)

Municipal Board, Nagaur v. Sushil Narayan Bohra

2014-02-10

ATUL KUMAR JAIN, GOVIND MATHUR

body2014
Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—By an award dated 22.4.2010 the Labour Court, Jodhpur, while answering a reference made to it by the appropriate government, declared retrenchment of the respondent workman illegal being in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'). A direction was given to the employer to reinstate the workman in service with all continuity and with 40% of the back wages from the date of retrenchment to the date of award. By notification dated 9.11.2010 the award was published as per provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act of 1947. 2. An application as per provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the Labour Court by the employer on 6.12.2010 to set aside the award being exparte. The application aforesaid came to be rejected by the order dated 17.9.2013, hence a petition for writ was preferred before this Court. The writ petition also came to be rejected on 18.12.2013 by holding as under:- “After going through the material placed on record and perusing the application preferred by the petitioner-Board for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and the impugned judgment and award, this Court is also of the opinion that the petitioner-Board has failed to make out a case for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and award. Therefore, the labour court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment and award dated 17.9.2013.” 3. This appeal is preferred to challenge the order dated 17.9.2013 with assertion that “the appellant-employer has given sufficient cause for its non-appearance before the learned Labour Court and entire mistake was committed by the employer's counsel. It is settled proposition of law that the litigant should not be suffered for the fault on the part of the advocate, but, the learned Courts below has considered this aspect of law and committed a serious error of law, while rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.” Suffice to mention here that an application for the same purpose could have been filed by the appellant as per Rule 22-A of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. Be that as it may, the argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner-appellant is that the Labour Court dismissed the application without adequately examining the sufficient cause for non-appearance on the part of the employer and the writ Court also failed to appreciate the same. It is asserted that the error occurred as the counsel for the employer failed to convey dates of the case and also did not appear before the court resulting into non-representation at the time of adjudication of the industrial dispute. 4. Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the award impugned as well as the judgment passed by learned Single Bench. 5. Learned Single Bench, while examining the award impugned, arrived at the conclusion that the Labour Court considered all aspects of the matter and rightly reached at the conclusion that the employer despite several opportunities did not make efforts for its representation. From perusal of the award impugned it is apparent that the employer was represented by its representative upto 8.12.2006 but subsequent thereto failed to join the reference proceedings. From perusal of the award impugned it is apparent that the employer was represented by its representative upto 8.12.2006 but subsequent thereto failed to join the reference proceedings. The relevant portion of the award reads as under:- ^^9- ;fn xq.kkoxq.k ij ekeys dks ns[ksa rks ge bl ckr ij fopkj djsaxs fd D;k vizkFkhZ uxjikfydk e.My dh vuqifLFkfr ds dkj.k mä bdrjQk vokMZ dks vikLr fd;k tkukmfpr gS vFkok ughaaA bl laca/k esa Je fookn la[;k 104@2002 lq'khy ukjk;.k cuke uxjikfydk dh vknsf'kdkvksa dks ns[ksa rks ;g lkeus vkrk gS fd mä izdj.k fnukad 06-11-2002 dks ntZ jftLVj fd;k tkdj i{kdkjksa dks uksfVl tkjh fd;s x;s ftl ij fnukad 17-12-2002 dks izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls Jh /kuirey fla?koh us odkyrukek is'k fd;k rFkk vizkFkhZ uxjikfydk e.My dh vksj ls Jh xksfoUn lksuh vf/koDrk us odkyrukek is'k fd;k o ek¡x-i= gsrq i=koyh 27-02-2003 dks dSEi dksVZ ukxkSj esa fu;r~ dh xbZA fnukad 27-02-2003 dks izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls ek¡x-i= e; nLrkostkr is'k fd;s x;s ftlds tokc gsrq i=koyh fnukad 08-05-2003 dks dsEi ukxkSj esa fu;r dh xbZA mlds i'pkr~ fnukad 08-05-2003 dks vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls tokc gsrq le; pkgk o fnukad 09-07-2003 dks dsEi dksVZ vk;ksftr ugha gqvk rFkk fnukad 04-09-2003 dks vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls tokc is'k fd;k o i=koyh 'kiFk i= izkFkhZ Jfed gsrq fnukad 14-11-2003 dks dsEi dksVZ ukxkSj esa fu;r dh xbZA fnukad 14-11-2003 dks izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls jsdMZ rych dk izkFkZuk i= is'k fd;k ftlds tokc o cgl gsrq i=koyh fnukad 08-12-2003 dks fu;r dh xbZ] ysfdu ml jkst vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ekSdk pkgk] ysfdu izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls ml jkst lkr 'kiFk i= is'k fd;s x;s o i=koyh fnukad 09-01-2004 dks fu;r dh xbZA fnukad 09-01-2004 dks izkFkZuk i= ij cgl lquh o vkns'k gsrq 16-01-2004 dks fu;r dh xbZA fnukad 16-01-2004 dks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k o i=koyh 'kiFk i= vizkFkhZ gsrq 20-03-2004 dks fu;r dh xbZA vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls fnukad 20-03-2004] 21-05-2004 o 04-08-2004 dks 'kiFk i= izLrqr djus gsrq ekSdk pkgk ftl ij 09-09-2004 rkjh[k is'kh fu;r dh xbZ ml jkst vf/koäkvksa dh gM+rky ds dkj.k i=koyh 04-11-2004 dks fu;r dh xbZ ysfdu fnukad 04-11-2004 dks Hkh vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls 'kiFk i= is'k ugha fd;k ftl ij 300@& :i;s gtsZ ij volj fn;k x;k o i=koyh fnukad 07-01-2005 dks fu;r dh xbZA fnukad 07-01-2005 dks vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k o i=koyh ftjg izkFkhZ Jfed gsrq 05-03-2005 dks fu;r dh xbZ] ftl jkst izkFkhZ us volj pkgk o i=koyh 07-05-2005 dks fu;r dh xbZA mlds i'pkr~ yxHkx nl voljksa ij fofHkUu dkj.kksa ls dsEi dksVZ vk;ksftr ugha gks ldkA fnukad 10-11-2006 dks izkFhkZ us ftjg gsrq ekSdk pkgk o nksuksa i{kksa ds izfrfuf/kx.k us i=koyh dsEi dksVZ esM+rk esa j[kus dh izkFkZuk dh ftl ij i=koyh fnukad 08-12-2006 dks dsEi esM+rk esa j[kh xbZA ml jkst vizkFkhZ mifLFkr ugha gqvk ftl ij i=koyh fnukad 11-12-2006 dks fu;r dh xbZA mlds i'pkr~ fofHkUu isf'k;ksa ij izkFkhZ ds 'kiFkx`grkvksa o vizkFkhZ ds 'kiFkx`grk ls ftjg gqbZ o vizkFkhZ ds 'ks"k xokg ls ftjg gsrq i=koyh tks/kiqj eq[;ky; ij j[kh xbZA mlds i'pkr~ dHkh izkFkhZ dh vksj ls o dHkh vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls vuqifLFkfr ds dkj.k i=koyh esa rkjh[k is'kh;kW nh tkrh jghA mlds i'pkr~ yxHkx 16 voljksa ij vizkFkhZ dk xokg mifLFkr ugha gqvkA vknsf'kdkvksa dks ns[kus ls Li"V gksrk gS fd dkQh voljksa ij vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls fdlh ds mifLFkr ugha gksus dkj.k fnukad 03-02-2010 dks vizkFkhZ ds fo:) dk;Zokgh bdrjQk dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA fnukad 19-04-2010 dks izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh cgl lquh xbZ o izdj.k fnukad 22-04-2010 dks vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq fu;r fd;k x;k o ml jkst ,di{kh; vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;kA 6. A reading of the discussions made by the Labour Court clearly indicates that the employer was not serious to make its representation to contest the reference made by the appropriate government. It was the duty of the employer to get proper care of the proceedings concerned and to make its representation. The Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 in quite specific terms empowers Labour Court to proceed exparte on satisfying that a party is not coming before it for contesting the dispute despite having knowledge. In the case in hand such satisfaction is apparent and that is based on objective examination of the facts and circumstances. Learned Single Judge, thus, rightly affirmed the order dated 17.9.2013 while dismissing the petition for writ. No interference therein is required in appellate jurisdiction. 7. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. The dismissal of this writ petition, however, shall in no manner adversely effect rights of the employer to challenge the award dated 22.4.2010 on its own merits.