BHARAT UKAJI Vs. ARVIND MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. U.T. Mishra for petitioner and learned advocate Mr. D.G. Chauhan for respondent in both petitions. Both petitions are having similar facts and petitioner in both petitions has challenged order passed by Industrial Court in Appeal (IC) N0.49 of 2008 and 50 of 2008 dated 8.9.2010 where appeal which was preferred by respondent Company has been allowed and order passed by Labour Court in Misc. Application Nos.214/2004 and 215/2004, dated 30.9.2008, Exh.8, has been set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of both petitions are that the service of workman-petitioner was terminated on 12.8.1991. Therefore, T. Application was preferred by workman which was withdrawn on 6.6.1996 by advocate of workman without consulting the petitioner. Therefore, application was made by workman before Labour Court for restoration of T. Application with a prayer to condone delay in filing such application for restoration. Therefore, by order dated 30.9.2008, Labour Court, Ahmedabad has restored both T. Application which orders were challenged by respondent Company before Industrial Court in both Appeals which came to be allowed. Therefore, that orders are challenged in both petitions by petitioner-workmen.

(3.) It is necessary to note that T. Application No.512 of 1991 was preferred by Dahyabhai Maganbhai and T. Application No.451 of 1991 was preferred by Bharat Ukaji. Aforesaid T. Applications which were preferred by respective petitioner against termination which came to be withdrawn because of the fact that matter has been settled out side the Court between parties and therefore, such pursis was filed with signature of workman / advocate on 6.6.21996 and on 19.6.1996, accordingly, withdrawal application has been allowed by Labour Court and on 24.6.1996, a detailed order has been passed upon Exh.7 / Exh.16 by Labour Court, Ahmedabad granting permission to workman to withdraw T. application which was preferred by respective petitioner and then, after a period of 8 years, Misc. Application was filed by workman in the year 2004 with a prayer to condone the delay which was allowed by Labour Court on 30.9.2008. According to case of workman, this application was withdrawn by Union without consultation to workman and therefore, such withdrawal allowed in absence of workman is required to be set aside and main T. Application is required to be restored. For that before Labour Court, workman was examined and ultimately, Labour Court has considered original papers of T. Application filed by workman and after verifying original case papers and considering oral evidence of workman led in T. Application, Labour Court has come to conclusion that withdrawal pursis does bear signature of workman and therefore, Labour Court has set aside order of withdrawal and restored T. Application preferred by workman in both cases. Thereafter, Industrial Court in appeal come to conclusion considering delay of 8 years in tiling such application and also considering provisions of Section 118 (B) of BIR Act and in case if matter has been decided in absence of either party, then such ex-party order is required to be considered by Labour Court and in such circumstances, Labour Court can pass appropriate orders upon application which was made by concerned employee / employer. But Industrial Court has come to conclusion that such application is required to be filed within 30 days from date of receiving copy of such order passed by labour Court. Therefore, delay of 8 years not properly explained by workman and no sufficient cause has been shown by workman and there was no reason / rational has been justified by workman to remain 8 years without knowledge of such orders and come to conclusion that workman is not entitled benefit of condonation of delay of 8 years and therefore, order passed by Labour Court on 30.9.2008 has been set aside.