MANAGEMENT OF KARATHOZUVU PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in both the writ petitions is the same Primary Agriculture Co-operative Bank Limited, Karathozuvu in Udumalai Taluk. In W.P.No.9162 of 2007, the challenge is to the ex-parte Award made in I.D.No.529 of 1999 dated 08.05.2002. THE challenge in W.P.No.9163 of 2007 is to the order passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.A.No.94 of 2006 in I.D.No.529 of 1999 dated 13.04.2006 in rejecting the application for condoning the delay of 971 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte Award.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the ex-parte Award as well as the order passed in refusing to condone the delay, the two writ petitions came to be filed. They were admitted on 13.03.2007. Pending the writ petitions, in M.P.No.1 of 2007 in W.P.No.9162 of 2007, this Court granted an interim stay for a period of three weeks. Despite notice, the contesting second respondent has not appeared either in person or through counsel. She was served by this Court as early as 28.05.2007. Therefore, in the absence of the second respondent, the matters will have to be proceeded on the basis of the records submitted.

(3.) THE stand of the Labour Court that it has become functus officio and therefore unable to deal with the application is not inconsonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in(2009) 2 SCC 81 [Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi v. L.H. Patel]. THE Supreme Court held notwithstanding the publication of the Award in the manner prescribed under Section 17-A of the I.D.Act, if the rules provides for setting aside the ex parte Award it is akin to a power of Civil Court under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and the Labour Court will continue to have jurisdiction. Apart from this, under Rule 43 of the said Rules, the Labour Court has the power of a Civil Court similar to that of the rule relating to appearance of plaintiffs and defendants in the suit. Hence, the order passed by the Labour Court in I.A.No.94 of 2006 in I.D.No.529 of 2006 is liable to be set aside. In any event, it is unnecessary to send the matter for determination by the Labour Court on the application filed by the Management as the Management itself has come forward to challenge the ex parte award in the first writ petition in W.P.No.9162 of 2007. It must be noted that under Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Dispute Rules the Labour Court is expected to pass Award on merits of the case as if the other side is present. In the present case, the Labour Court has passed an one line order stating that the workman has proved her claim without discussing the nature of evidence and the claim made by her. THE Award is liable to be set aside on this short ground.