PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE Vs. INDRASINH CHANDRASINH ZALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRIMARY Health Centre, Kadjodra, through the District Development Officer of the capital of the State, i.e. Gandhinagar, has invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for granting the prayers of setting aside the award and order dated 6.10.2003 made by Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1409 of 1991; without any plausible explanation for the delay. According to the impugned award, the Reference before the Labour Court was already decided earlier by an ex -parte award dated 6.3.1997 after granting to the petitioner so many adjournments and opportunities while the petitioner had not cared to even file a formal written statement in the court. Thereafter, that ex -parte award dated 6.3.1997 was set aside upon a Misc.Application made by the petitioner and even thereafter, nobody had remained present before the court nor was any evidence led before the Labour Court on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the Labour Court noted that, by consistent absence and non -cooperation, the petitioner had adopted a policy of merely delaying the adjudication which could be only deprecated. Under such circumstances, the Labour Court made the impugned award on the basis of the statement of claim and deposition of the respondent which was never controverted or challenged in cross -examination.

(2.) OBVIOUSLY , even after the second ex -parte award made in the year of 2003 and being aware about the rights and claim of the respondent, the petitioner has failed to either adopt appropriate alternative remedy of making application for setting aside the ex -parte award or approach this court within reasonable period; with the result that the workman discharged from service on 28.2.1991 is made to go from pillar to post for 16 years for any relief and the litigation is carried on at public expenses in the most lackadaisical manner.

(3.) UPON issuance of notice to the respondent, learned counsel Mr M.H. Rathod has appeared and he submitted that the impugned award was, as yet, not implemented and even the amount of Rs.10,000/ - ordered to be paid by way of cost and subject to payment of which the Reference was restored by order dated 20.8.2002, was not paid to the respondent. He further submitted that the petitioner had neglected to attend the court and take any defence despite an advocate namely; Mr B.R. Raval having been engaged and having appeared in the Labour Court for the petitioner.