METAL FABRICATORS (INDIA) Vs. B D GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question of law raised by. these two writ petitions (and which often arises in several others) is whether the Labour Court (or the Industrial Tribunal) has the jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte order or award passed by it on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the party aggrieved by it.

(2.) Industrial disputes relating to the validity of the termination of the employee Bharat Singh by his employer Messrs. Metal Fabricators (India) (Civil Writ 1286 of 1973) and of Chaman Lal and eight others by their employers Messrs. Asian Electricals, Vijay Engineering Works and Messrs Aarson Insulators (Civil Writ 860 of 1972) were pending before the Additional Labour Court Delhi. On March 24, 1973. Messrs. Metal Fabricators did not appear. The Additional Labour Court proceeded ex parte against them and fixed the case for evidence on April 9, 1973 when the evidence was recorded. An ex parte award was made on April 25, 1973. The employers moved an application on June 8, 1973 for setting aside the ex parte award made against them and pleaded that there was sufficient cause for their non-appearance on March 24, 1973. The Additional Labour Court, however, dismissed the application in limine on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte award.

(3.) An ex parte award was also passed ordering reinstatement of the workmen against their employers Asian Electricals, Vijay Engineering Works and Aarson Insulators on May 2, 1972. The employers applied on June 7, 1972, for setting aside the ex parte award on the ground that there was sufficient cause for their non-appearance on March 25, 1972 and thereafter. The application was fixed for July 14, 1972 for a reply by the Union of the employees. The case was taken up at about 11.15 A. M. When there was no appearance for the Union, the ex parte award was set aside on the ground that the non-appearance of the employers resulting in an ex parte award against them was justified by sufficient cause. The Union thereupon applied on July 15, 1972, explaining that on July 14, 1972 its representatives were busy in another court and when they came to the Additional Labour Court at 11.50 A. M.. the order setting aside the exparte order has already been passed. This application was also dismissed by the Labour Court on the ground that the provisions of Order IX Civil Procedure Code were inapplicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to review its previous order.