MOHITOSH DASS C O GUJARAT RAJYA KAMDAR UNION Vs. M G MEMON OR HIS SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Heard learned advocate Mr.M.S.Mansuri on behalf of the applicant in civil application and for petitioner in main petition and learned advocate Mr.Krunal Nanavati for respondent - employer.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :- The petitioner was working with the respondent No.2 with effect from 1/04/1983 and made permanent in service by written order dated 30th September, 1983. According to the petitioner, the respondent has served a false chargesheet in violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly, service of the petitioner came to be terminated without holding legal and proper inquiry with effect from 1/04/1984. The said order of termination was challenged by the petitioner by way of raising industrial dispute which came to be referred for adjudication in Reference No.631 / 1984. Before the labour court, statement of claim was filed by the petitioner on 10/04/1985. The petitioner has filed Special Civil Application No.1002 / 1990 challenging the award passed by the labour court in terms of the settlement. This Court, after hearing the parties, was pleased to quash and set aside the compromise award. Thereafter, one application is filed by the respondent to engage Advocate in the Reference proceedings on 12th February, 1993. The respondent No.2 have filed Vakalatnama of the Advocate which is exhibited at Sr.No.25 on 22/02/1993. The respondent employer has submitted another application Exh.28 in which amendment to their original written statement was sought. The labour court vide Exh.29 passed the order upon Exh.28 and the application was not entertained. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted application requesting the labour court to permit to lead evidence but the matter was kept for hearing before the labour court who was posted on deputation from Civil Court. The Union representative of the petitioner who was present and informed the Court that the petitioner workman could not remain present due to unavoidable circumstances and requested for adjournment but the labour court has dismissed the Reference in default and thereafter, application for restoration is made for restoring the Reference. The award has been published on 6th August, 1999. The application submitted by the petitioner under Section 26-A along with the affidavit, has been dismissed by the labour court and therefore, present petition is filed.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Mansuri submitted that before the labour court, hearing was taken place between 13th April, 1985 to 25/11/1998 and considering absence of the petitioner, the labour court has dismissed the matter in default by order dated 16/12/1998 and that award is published on 22/07/1999. Thereafter, the Misc. Application No.15 / 1999 was filed in Reference No.631 / 1984 by the petitioner. The labour court has also dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner is not able to satisfy to the labour court about sufficient reasons to remain absent and therefore, on 1/04/2000, misc. application is also dismissed, against that, present petition is filed. On behalf of the respondent No.2, detailed affidavit-in-reply is filed.