R V NAGABHOOSANAM Vs. M R F LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of Certiorari in calling for the records relating to the award of the second respondent dated 22.03.1999 in I.D.No.297 of 1994 raised by deceased Workman N.Nandan against the first respondent/ Management and to quash the same and also to direct the second and third respondents to restore the said Industrial Dispute I.D.No.297 of 1994 to the file of the Labour Court, Vellore and to issue further direction to the second respondent to entertain the application of the petitioners for their substitution as petitioners in the said industrial dispute in the place of the deceased workman and dispose of the said Industrial Dispute on merits within a time frame to be determined by this Court.

(2.) THE petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Workman N.Nandan, who was employed in the first respondent/Company. THE Industrial Dispute I.D.No.297 of 1994 on the file of the second respondent was dismissed for non prosecution on 22.03.1999. THE deceased Workman N.Nandan had filed a petition under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 before the second respondent/Labour Court and the same was taken on file as I.D.No.297 of 1994. In the said I.D., the deceased Workman prayed for the relief of setting aside the order of termination passed by the first respondent/Management dated 03.10.1992 and sought also the relief of continuity in service with backwages and other benefits.

(3.) EXPATIATING his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there may be several reasons for a workman in not attending the particular hearing of the Labour Court including the reason of penury and whether a party is present or not, the Labour Court has the responsibility of adjudicating the matter on merits and this cannot be shrugged off by the Labour Court and in the instant case, the second respondent/Labour Court in its award has made the following observation "This petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 2A(2) of I.D. Act 1947. No representation for petitioner. This is old petition. Petitioner called absent. Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. No cost." and in fact the second respondent inspite of the absence of the petitioner has not proceeded further in the matter in issue on merits and therefore the second respondent/Labour Court has not performed its duty, as adumbrated by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and by following the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958.