CHANCHAL SINGH Vs. LABOUR COURT, DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We had issued a show cause notice. A return has been filed. In view of the very small point involved, we issue rule D. B., and proceed to hear the matter immediately.

(2.) The facts of the case are not very much in doubt. An Award was made on Mar. 17, 1979 which is stated to have been passed ex parte against M/s Montgomery Transport Company. The award was published on April 12, 1979. On April 25, 1979 M/s Montgomery Transport Company applied to have the award set aside. This application was dismissed on Nov. 2, 1979 on account of the non-appearance of any representative of M/s Montgomery Transport Company. In other words, it was dismissed for what could ordinarily be recorded as default of appearance. Against this order M/s Montgomery Transport Company filed a review petition on Nov. 30, 1979. This application was considered by the learned Labour Court and a judgment dated Mar. 5, 1980 was delivered holding that the review application was not maintainable as the Labour Court had no power to review its judgment. It was stated : "The said legal position has not been challenged on behalf of the Management and no authority has been referred to show that the review application can lie".

(3.) Not being satisfied with this decision the Management filed a fresh application on May 1, 1980 purporting to be a review of the order dated Mar. 5, 1980. Instead of rejecting this application outright the learned Labour Court entertained this application and issued notice to the workman and also proceeded to frame an issue on July 2, 1980 in the following terms : "Whether exists sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte award passed on Mar. 17, 1979". The case will come up for leading evidence on 3-9-80." In addition, the Labour Court passed an order on Aug. 11, 1980, staying the payment of the amount found due to the workman concerned by the award dated Mar. 17, 1979. The effect of this order, therefore, is that the workman concerned has not been paid any amount out of the awarded amount, though the same is lying in the Court. This has led the workman to file the present writ petition to challenge the procedure adopted by the Labour Court.