RAJENDRAN Vs. RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issues arise for consideration in these original petitions are common and as such, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Petitioner is one and the same in all the original petitions. The respondents in the original petitions were employees in the toddy shop run by the petitioner. The respondents preferred applications before the Labour Court, Kollam invoking Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming arrears of wages and other monetary benefits allegedly due to them. The applications were initially allowed ex-parte by the Labour Court. The petitioner, thereupon, preferred applications to set aside the ex-parte orders as also applications to condone the delay in filing the applications to set the exparte orders. The case of the petitioner is that the lawyer appearing for the petitioner in the said matters was diagnosed with cancer and was under treatment in the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that since the lawyer has not made any alternative arrangement for appearance before the Labour Court in the matters entrusted to him by the petitioner, the applications preferred by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte orders as also to condone the delay in filing the applications for setting aside the ex-parte orders have been dismissed for default. It is stated by the petitioner that he came to know about the same only when revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by the ex-parte orders thereupon. The petitioner thereupon preferred applications to restore the applications preferred by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte orders as also the applications preferred seeking orders to condone the delay in filing the applications for setting aside the ex-parte orders. The said applications are pending. The grievance of the petitioner in the original petitions concerns the proceedings against him under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the amounts covered by the ex-parte orders when the applications preferred by the petitioner for restoration of the applications for setting aside the exparte orders as also the applications for condonation of the delay in filing the applications for setting aside the exparte orders are pending. He, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in these matters.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondents.