KUMARAGIRI TEXTILES Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.R.Parthiban, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the second respondent has entered appearance through counsel, there was no representation on behalf of the second respondent for the past three occasions and even today. Therefore, this Court is constrained to consider the merits of the matter based on the available records including the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent.

(2.) The petitioner is a textile mill and has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court, Salem, in I.A.No.170 and 171 of 2003 in I.D.No.251 of 1999 dated 23.06.2003 and for a consequential direction to permit the petitioner to let in evidence and file additional counter statement. The second respondent was a permanent worker in the petitioner management and it is alleged that the second respondent absented himself from work on and from 01.05.1996 and thereafter, he purchased a tractor and was doing agricultural operations in his lands in and around Dharmapuri. It is further stated that after about one year the second respondent addressed the petitioner alleging that he was denied employment by the management. Thereafter, the second respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Officer and the petitioner management appeared before the Labour Officer and submitted that the second respondent continued to be in employment and no point of time he was denied employment and the petitioner management had made it clear that the second respondent was at liberty to join duty at any time. In view of such stand taken by the petitioner management, the Labour Officer closed the conciliation proceedings.

(3.) It is stated that the second respondent joined duty on 14.09.1997 and thereafter, disciplinary action was taken for his absence from 01.05.1996 to 13.09.1997 and ultimately, the second respondent was dismissed from service by order dated 17.04.1998. The second respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Officer and since there was no settlement, the second respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The claim petition was taken on file as I.D.No.251 of 1999. Before the Labour Court, a preliminary issue was raised as to whether the domestic enquiry conducted was fair and proper and the findings rendered by the enquiry officer was acceptable. The Labour Court by its preliminary order dated 21.11.2002 held that the domestic enquiry conducted was fair and proper and the findings rendered by the enquiry officer was acceptable. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments. It was at that stage, the petitioner management filed interlocutory applications in I.A.Nos.170 and 171 of 2003 praying for an order to accept the additional counter statement and to permit the petitioner management to lead additional evidence regarding the plea that the second respondent was gainfully employed after the dismissal from service by the management. It was submitted before the Labour Court that the charge against the second respondent was that during the period of absence, he was engaged himself in business and the petitioner management had reliable witness to the activities of the second respondent after the dismissal from service. Therefore, it is submitted that grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner management if the evidence is shut out.