TAMIZHAGA PANCHALAI THOZHILALAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner union has raised a dispute against the punishment of suspension imposed by the management of Saravana Spinning Mills Ltd., against three workmen and the issue has been referred for adjudication by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.884, dated 05.10.1999 and it has been taken on file, by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Thiruchirapalli as I.D.No.116 of 1999. The workmen have been represented by a counsel. On 20.02.2004 the matter has been dismissed for default, for non appearance. According to the petitioner, the Advocate Clerk has wrongly noted down the date, as 27.02.2004 instead of 20.02.2004 and hence, the counsel could not appear.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner union is that all along I.D.No.116 of 1999 was represented without any default. Since a mistake has been committed by the clerk, two applications were filed in I.D.No.116 of 1999 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Thiruchirapalli,

(3.) IN support of the relief sought for in the writ petition, referring to Rule 34 (10) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if anyone of the parities defaults or fails to appear, the first respondent is bound to proceed exparte and dispose of the same in the absence of defaulting party on merits and therefore, there is failure on the part of the Presiding Officer, to adjudicate the dispute. He also submitted that the Labour Court has failed to consider the fact that the petitioner has been represented in all the hearings and that the default on 20.02.2004 was only due to the mistake, committed by the advocate clerk in wrongly noting down the date and hence, he is competent to swear an affidavit.