SABHAPATI NAGAR PANCHAYAT KARAMSAD Vs. AMRISH NATHUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Civil Application is directed against the order dated 15-9-1995 passed by the Labour Court, Anand in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 44 of 1993 read with the Award dated 6-8-1993 passed in Reference No. 434 of 1992. Nagar Panchayat, Karamsad became Municipal Borough by a Notification issued under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. The respondents-workmen had been appointed in the Nagar Panchayat, Karamsad. The respondents were working with the Nagar Panchayat as Clerks for a period of 4 to 6 years at the time when their services were terminated on 31-6-1987. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the respondents were employees of Nagar Panchayat, Karamsad or whether they were working with a Contractor of Nagar Panchayat, Karamsad. On 15-4-1994 the Nagar Panchayat, Karamsad became the Municipal Borough and it is the case of the Municipal Borough that the respondents had been employed by the Contractor of Nagar Panchayat, Karamsad and they were not the employees of Nagar Panchayat, Karamsad.

(2.) The respondents raised an industrial dispute against their termination dated 31-6-1987 and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Nadiad and the same was subsequently decided by the Labour Court, Anand on 6-8-1993 as Reference No. 434 of 1992. The Labour Court, Anand while passing the Award dated 6- 8-1993 noted the case of the respondents-workmen that they had been working in the Octroi Department for a period of 4 to 6 years when they were terminated on 31-6-1987 without following the relevant provisions of law and without giving any notice or notice pay. On behalf of the present petitioner no written statement was filed before the Labour Court despite the notices given by the Labour Court. The employer did not appear before the Labour Court despite several notices and no oral or documentary evidence was produced although they had been duly informed by the Labour Court. The eight respondents-workmen were examined before the Labour Court, but they were not cross-examined by the employer and in such circumstances the evidence led on behalf of the respondents-workmen was accepted by the Labour Court, including their statement that they were not gainfully employed after their termination and on that basis vide Award dated 6-8-1993, the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages was granted. Against this Award dated 6-8-1993, an Application No. 44 of 1993 was moved by Nagar Panchayat, Karamsad under Rules 26 and 26A of the Industrial Disputes Rules for setting aside the ex parte Award dated 6-8-1993 and this Application was rejected by the order dated 15-9-1995 passed by the Labour Court, Anand and now this Special Civil Application has been filed against the order dated 15-9-1995 rejecting the Application for setting aside the ex parte Award as also against the Award dated 6-8-1993.

(3.) The petitioner has come with the case that a lawyer had been engaged by them, but the lawyer did not appear in the proceedings before the Labour Court in which the Award dated 6-8-1993 was passed and, therefore, the Labour Court was not right in rejecting the Application for setting aside the ex-parte Award. The Application should have been allowed and the matter should have been considered again in presence of both the sides by the Labour Court.