LAWS(MAD)-2020-1-519

P.AZHAGARSAMY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

Decided On January 09, 2020
P.Azhagarsamy Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to I.A.416 of 2009 in I.D.75 of 1999, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to set aside the ex parte award passed in I.D.75 of 1999 and take up the same for trial.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has raised an Industrial Dispute challenging the order of dismissal and prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages. The said Industrial Dispute had been numbered as I.D.No.75 of 1999 on the file of the first respondent. When the case was posted on 07.11.2008 for hearing, since the petitioner went to Chennai to attend a condolence, he was not able to attend the hearing and therefore, he was set ex parte. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed the present application, i.e., I.A.No.416 of 2009 before the first respondent Court with a prayer to condone the delay of 243 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte award. The said application in I.A.No.416 of 2009 has been dismissed by the the first respondent vide impugned order dated 31.08.2012. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not able to attend the hearing due to condolence in his relative's house at Chennai and when he returned from Chennai he got ill and was taking treatment and therefore, he could not contact his counsel. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed the present application to condone the delay of 243 days for restoration of the dismissed Industrial Dispute. The said application should have been entertained and the delay could have been condoned by the first respondent, as otherwise the petitioner would loose the chance of getting the Industrial Dispute raised before the Labour Court decided on merits. Further, the first respondent Labour Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the ex parte award has been sent for publication on 03.12.2008 and therefore, the Labour Court was not in a position to accept the reason for the absence of the petitioner, as the Court has become functus officio under Section 17A of the Act.