BABU JUSAB Vs. TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this special civil application the petitioner workman, who was in service of respondent No. 1, challenges the order of the Labour Court, Rajkot, dated 28th November, 1986 passed below Exh. 1 in Misc. Application No. 45/83 under which the application filed by him for setting aside the order of dismissal of the reference for default was rejected. The petitioner was dismissed from service of the respondents. He raised industrial dispute through the Union in the matter of his dismissal from service. That dispute was referred by Govrnment to the Labour Court, Rajkot, where it was registered as Reference (LCR) No. 799/81. Even after service of notice of the aforesaid reference on Chemical Kamdar Sangh, Mithapur-the Union through which that dispute was raised 1 the Union did not file statement of claim. Ultimately the reference came to be dismissed for default on 8.3.1982. In the application filed by the petitioner he has given out the date of dismissal of the reference as 8.7.1982, but subsequently he has admitted that it was dismissed on 8.3.1982. The application for setting aside the order of dismissal of the reference for default has been filed on 17th November, 1983, that is, more than 16 months from 8.7.1982 and about 20 months from the 8.3.1982. That application came to be dismissed under the impugned order on the ground of bar by limitation. Hence this special civil application before this Court.

(2.) Mr. H.K. Rathod, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Labour Court has no power to dismiss the reference for default. It has next been contended that under Rule 26(A) of the Gujarat Industrial Disputes Rules the Labour Court has power to condone delay, but despite this fact though the petitioner has made out sufficient cause for delay in filing the application, the same has not been condoned and the application has been dismissed. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that the Labour Court has recorded the finding of fact on the basis of evidence produced by both the parties and as such this Court sitting under Art. 227 of the Constitution may not interfere in the matter. Finding of fact which has been recorded by the Labour Court cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary. It has next been contended that the Labour Court has all the powers to dismiss the reference for default, where the workman or his representative Union has not put appearance. In the present case the Union has even not filed statement of claim and in absence of statement of claim and evidence, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that the only course which could have been followed is to dismiss the reference for default.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the parites.