MOHMED YAHAYA KOLA Vs. JAMES DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition purporting to be under Art.226 of the Constitution of India (it ought really to be under Art.227) is by the Management of a transport undertaking. The challenge is against the order made by the Labour Court computing compensation payable to the respondents workmen under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which will hereinafter be referred to ap the Act.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs (workmen) was that they had been employed by the Management of the transport undertaking for more than a year and that on 15-10-1967 the Management of the undertaking was transferred and therefore they were entitled to arrears of salary and the value of the benefits in terms of money and also compensation for retrenchment as per the provisions of S. 25FF of the Act. On behalf of the Management, it was stated that the employment of the workmen was terminated on account of unauthorised absence of the workmen from 15-10-1967. It was therefore contended that since the termination was on account of misconduct, there was no existing right in the workmen to claim any compensation under S.33C(2) of the Act. It was further contended that the Labour Court while entertaining the application under Sec.33C(2) of the Act was not competent to go into the question of the termination of the services of the workmen and it was a matter to be adjudicated only on a reference under Section 10 of the Act.

(3.) The case had been set down for hearing before the Labour Court on 7-3-1969. On that day, the Management which was represented by a Counsel sought an adjournment on the ground that the petitioner herein could not be present in Court owing to indisposition. The case was therefore adjourned to 21-3-1969 for further consideration. On that day nobody on behalf of the Management was present and no reason was shown as to why the case had to be adjourned on that day. The Tribunal proceeded to consider the case treating the Management as ex parte. Ultimately, it made an award in favour of the workmen computing compensation payable to each of them individually. This award came to be made on 3-4-69. On 30-4-1969, the present petitioner (Management) filed an application for setting aside the order on the ground that he was prevented from sufficient cause from attending to the case on 21-3-1969 when he was placed ex parte. In support of such application, he has produced a medical certificate and some other evidence in that regard. The Tribunal however refused to consider the application of the Management for setting aside the ex parte order on the ground that it had no jurisdiction. In doing so, it relied on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sarojini v. Lakshmana Rao 1969 (1) LLJ. 9 . It also referred to Rule 23 of the Rules framed under the Act (Mysore Rules) . Aggrieved by the order on the said application as well as the order made under S.33C(2) of the Act the petitioner has come to this Court.