CONVEYOUR TECHNICAL SERVICES Vs. BUDHIRAM ALAGU HARIJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the order made in C.A.No.7755 of 2008, we take up this appeal for hearing on merits. The appeal under clause 15 of Letters Patent is preferred against order dated 04.12.2007. The appellant is the writ -petitioner.

(2.) THE opponent was an employee in the appellant establishment and his service was terminated w.e.f. 28.07.1997. Aggrieved by the said termination, the opponent herein approached the Labour Court by way of Reference (LCA) No.78 of 1998 claiming that his service was illegally terminated and the procedure prescribed by law was not followed. The Labour Court, after issuing notice to the contesting parties, awaited the reply from present appellant, which was not filed for long time. Hence upon an application from the side of the workman, the stage of filing reply by the employer (present appellant), was closed. However, subsequently on an application made by the appellant -employer the request to accept the reply on record was granted by imposing cost. It is pertinent that even after the aforesaid opportunity, no one remained present on behalf of the appellant -employer during the Reference proceedings. Therefore, the Labour Court proceeded further in the matter and passed an Exparte Award dated 18.04.2006. Subsequently the appellant -employer preferred, on 18/21.07.2006, an application under Rule 26 -A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 with a prayer to set aside the Exparte Award and decide the reference on merits. By order dated 18.11.2006, the Labour Court rejected the said application. Thus, being aggrieved by the Exparte Award dated 18.04.2006 as well as order dated 18.11.2006 rejecting the Misc. Application, the appellant preferred the aforesaid Special Civil Application No.18314 of 2007. The learned Judge, after considering the submissions on behalf of the petitioner and upon examining the Award passed by the Labour Court, rejected the said petition. Hence, present appeal.

(3.) MR . K.M.Paul, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the appellant is suffering due to fault of its advocate who failed to remain present during the proceedings and the appellant establishment, which has been closed, deserves an opportunity to defend the reference on merits. He also submitted that, at the initial stage, the appellant was required to deposit Rs.10,000/ - (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards cost and subsequently the petition has been rejected. Mr. Paul submitted that when the appellant has already paid substantial amount towards cost, it would be just if the appellant is afforded an opportunity to defend the reference on merits. He also submitted that without sufficient reason or material the Labour Court has granted 75% of back -wages from the date of alleged termination till the date of superannuation, and the said direction is unjustified. He also submitted that the findings by the Labour Court do not have support of any evidence. No other submissions have been made.