MANAGEMENT OF STALLION GARMENTS ERODE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions, the petitioner which is the Management has challenged the ex parte award passed by the Labour Court, Salem in I.D. Nos. 25/2005, 24/2005 and 26/2005 respectively, dated September 28, 2005.

(2.) The petitioner company engaged in the business of manufacturing of knitted garments, started in 2003, had employed casual labourers and trainees and in 2004, nearly 20 temporary workers failed to report duty without applying for leave or informing the management and they were relieved from service on June 30, 2004, after waiting for a long time in order to enable them to report duty. 2(a) After they were relieved, they obstructed the premises of the company in a riotous manner, about which a police complaint was lodged in Uthukuli Police Station and later, the petitioner filed O.S. No. 364/2004 before the District Munsif's Court, Perundurai for permanent injunction against the temporary workers from disturbing the peaceful running of the factory and there was an order of interim injunction granted in LA. No. 460/2004. 2(b) After the said order, 17 out of 20 workers resigned from service, however, the second respondents in these writ petitions raised dispute in conciliation alleging that the petitioner terminated their services from July 1, 2004 without show-cause notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation, etc. Since the conciliation failed, the second respondents filed I.D. petition before the Labour Court, Salem. It is stated that the summons sent in the said Industrial Disputes were received by one of the staff of the petitioner, who did not bring the same to the knowledge of the petitioner and there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner was set ex parte and accordingly, an ex parte award was passed on May 28, 2005. 2(c) The ex parte award came to be known to the petitioner when the second respondents sent letters on June 26, 2006 seeking employment based on the award and thereafter, the petitioner management filed I.As. to set aside the ex parte award along with counter statement on merits in the said Industrial Disputes. Since there was a delay of 262 days in filing the petitions to set aside the ex parte award, the petitioner management filed I.As. in I.A. Nos. 182/2006, 181/2006 and 183/2006 respectively to condone the delay. In the said I.As. notice was ordered and the second respondents appeared through counsel and filed counter affidavit. 2(d) It was during the pendency of the said petitions, the petitioner sent letters to the second respondents on August 27, 2006, offering reemployment without prejudice to the right of the petitioner in the petitions filed to condone the delay. It is stated that after receiving the said letters, the second respondents reported for duty on August 31, 2006 and after working for a day, they failed to report duty and sent a letter on August 31,2006 stating that the management has not given the same work as they had done before and therefore they stopped reporting for duty. 2(e) It is stated that thereafter the management sent a reply dated September 9, 2006, denying the allegations and requested the second respondents to report duty but they failed and in such circumstances, the management sent a telegram on September 21, 2006 followed by a letter dated January 22, 2007, directing the second respondents to report for duty and the second respondents failed to report. 2(f) The Labour Court heard all the I.As. and by a common order dated September 27, 2007, dismissed the petitions on the ground that the award passed in I.Ds. was published in the Gazette on February 20,2006 and 30 days after publication the Labour Court has become functus officio based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sangham Tape Company v. Hans Raj 2004-III-LLJ-1141 (SC).

(3.) It is against the said ex parte award of the Labour Court dated September 28,2005, the writ petitions are filed challenging the same on various grounds that the second respondents have failed to prove that they were illegally terminated from service, that even if the management failed to appear before the Labour Court, the Labour Court should have decided the matter on merit by judicious application of mind, that the second respondents have not filed any document to prove that they were wantonly terminated from service on July 1, 2004 and therefore, the Labour Court in erroneous manner dismissed the I.As. and passed the ex parte award and that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the judgment of the Supreme Court that when an ex parte award is made and published in official gazette, only the said Court has jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte award, if sufficient cause is shown for the absence of appearance.