KUMARAN Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed by the Secretary of the Rice Mill Thozhilali Sangham, seeks to quash two orders passed by the first respondent - Labour Court, Kozhikode in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it, being I.D. No. 87/ 1977, the issue referred being "the denial of employment to Sri Vella son of Nayadi".

(2.) The casualness with which this reference had been treated by the petitioner - Union has been dealt with at considerable length in Para.2 of Ext. P-1 award of the Labour Court. It has stated that the reference stood initially posted to 20th December 1977, when both parties were present and when the Union was directed to file its written statement by 11th January 1978. The written statement was not filed by the stipulated time. There was no sitting of the Labour Court on that day. The case was adjourned to 8th February 1978. No written statement was filed on that day either. Further adjournment was granted to 9th March 1978. Even on that date, the Union sought for time and the Court granted it making it a final posting for the filing of written statement on 20th April 1978. This opportunity was also not utilised by the Union; the Labour Court was forced in the above circumstance to proceed with the matter in the absence of the statement of the Union. The Labour Court applied its mind to the issue referred before it, and observed, correctly according to me, that it was for the Union to substantiate the contentions in relation to the dispute, having regard to the nature of the issue referred. The Labour Court noted that there was no written statement on the part of the Union. An action taken in relation to an employee of the second respondent, in the absence of challenge about the legality of the action or the authority of the employer, was according to the Labour Court, to be upheld. It is in that view that the award was passed "upholding the action taken by the management".

(3.) On 10th May 1978, the Union filed M.P. No. 192/1978, an application for permitting the Union to file the claim statement and proceed with the adjudication. It is the complaint of the Union that no order was passed on that application. Apparently no further steps had been taken by the Union to move the Labour Court and to seek orders thereon. The award was published in the Gazette on 18th July 1978. The request of the Union was renewed by filing M.P. No. 341/1978, by which the Union prayed that the award may be set aside and a fresh award on merits be passed. In support of its plea for reopening of the award, and in justification of its absence on earlier occasions, the Secretary of the Union gave evidence that he was unwell, that he had been laid-up on 20th April 1978, that a doctor had treated him and that the prescription and the bill relating to such treatment were with him. The Labour Court, however, after considering his evidence and adverting to the anterior circumstances, did not choose to act upon the evidence of P.W. 1, the Secretary of the Union. This is what it stated in the order Ext. P-2 by which the application M.P. No. 341/1978 had been rejected on 17th May 1979: