JITUBHAI R PARMAR Vs. PROJECT TECHNOLOGIST PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. R.D. Raval for petitioner and Mr. H.J. Nanavati for respondent. This petition under Article 226, 14 and 21 of Constitution of India is filed by one Jitubhai R. Parmar against Project Technologist Pvt. Ltd. Respondent raised industrial dispute before conciliation officer. Ultimately, industrial dispute about termination was referred to for adjudication to labour court, Baroda being Reference No. 577/92, new reference No. 1079/97. Labour Court dismissed said reference in absence of petitioner for default by order dated 12th December, 1995 and Miscellaneous Application filed by petitioner with a prayer to set aside said order is rejected by labour court by order dated 19th May, 2003. Said order dated 19th May, 2003 is under challenge in this petition. Respondent has filed affidavit in reply and has raised preliminary contention and submitted that in exercise of powers under Article 227 of Constitution, this Court may not interfere with the order of labour court; petition is not maintainable. Second contention s that the labour Court Baroda has not committed any error, therefore, no interference is warranted. Then, respondent has mentioned certain facts that manufacturing activities are not going on but discontinued and it is closed since 31st December, 2001 changing scenario and now it is difficult for company to continue its activity. On 10.4.2001, Company has written letter to the GE Board to discontinue High Tension Electric Supply provided at the place where manufacturing activity of company is located. It is also submitted that the workman was negligent and was intentionally not remaining present before court, therefore, no opportunity is required to be given to workman by restoring original reference. It is alleged that the petitioner wants some monitory benefit any how and that is why proceedings are continued against respondent.

(2.) Mr. Raval, learned advocate for petitioner submits that labour court has no jurisdiction to pass such order dismissing reference for default of workman but it is duty of labour court to decide matter and adjudicate reference referred to for adjudication. He submits that labour court has committed gross error in dismissing reference in default on the part of workman. He submits that there was no intentional lapse on the part of workman but since his advocate was not remaining present, matter came to be dismissed. According to his submission, for the fault on the part of his advocate, workman should not be made to suffer. Therefore, it is his request to allow this petition by restoring main reference and to direct labour court to decide it on merits within some stipulated period.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati for respondent vehemently opposed submission of learned advocate Mr. Raval and submits that petitioner is interested in money and he is not interested in job; company has been closed as per the affidavit filed by respondent. Electricity connection is also disconnected by GE Board. In short, it is his submission that the petition may be dismissed and labour court has rightly passed order rejecting application filed by petitioner.