INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOC Vs. P.O.LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the award dated 17th December, 1998 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Case No. ID-044/86 wherein the learned Labour Court directed the Management/Petitioner to grant workman/ Respondent No. 2 reinstatement along with 25% back wages.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the impugned award was passed on 17th December, 1998 after setting aside an ex-parte award dated 5th October, 1995 published on 11th December, 1995 against the workman after the expiry of a period of thirty days of its publication. The award is violative of Sections, 11, 17A and 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ID Act). Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Sagham Tape Company vs. Hans Raj, 2004 AIR(SC) 4776 in support of this contention. The learned Labour Court has committed an error of law by not holding that the Petitioner/Management is not an "Industry? as defined under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner is not engaged in any business or activity as defined under the ID Act, rather it is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act and as such it cannot be held to be an "industry?. The learned Trial Court has deprived the Petitioner of its right of defence and cross-examination of witnesses. The Trial Court ought to have allowed a further opportunity to the Petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and adduce its evidence. It is lastly contended that granting of relief of reinstatement and back wages in the facts and circumstances of the case is wholly unjustified, illegal and untenable in the eyes of law. Granting the relief of reinstatement with back wages is neither invariable rule nor automatic and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

(3.) Per contra learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 contends that the Labour Court is competent to set aside its ex-parte award if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party was prevented from appearing by sufficient cause. Reliance is placed on Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others, 1981 AIR(SC) 606. The Petitioner is earning money in various ways from its allied activities. It is letting out halls/premises and is earning rents etc. Hence, is covered under definition of "industry" under Section 2 (j) of the ID Act. Learned counsel contends that despite several opportunities given to the Petitioner and almost two years time spent in litigation before the learned Labour Court, the Petitioner failed to either cross-examine witnesses or to adduce its own evidence. The Petitioner intentionally absented itself before the learned Labour Court hence it was rightly proceeded ex-parte. The proceedings were undertaken as per law and it was the Petitioner who evaded the said proceedings. Hence, at this stage the Petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. The Petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the award and the proceedings. It is lastly submitted that the Petitioner has also not filed any application to set aside the ex-parte award which would have been a proper course in the case where an ex-parte order is passed and hence, at this stage it cannot be allowed to challenge the legality of the impugned award.