JASWANT SUGAR MILLS LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution The circumstances in which it has arisen are these: The petitioner is a public limited company and the respondent 2 was one of its employees. The services of the respondent 2 were terminated. A dispute between the petitioner and its employees was pending on the date of termination. The respondent 2 then filed a claim before the labour court under Section 6F of the Uttar Pradesh industrial Disputes Act praying that the order terminating his services should be set aside and he should be reinstated. The ground was that the termination should have been made after obtaining prior approval of the labour court in which an earlier dispute was pending. On this application being made a notice was issued to the petitioner in which it was required to pat in appearance at 10-30 a.m. on 16 March 1961. It was also directed by that notice that the petitioner should file its written statement by that date. The gentleman who was to represent the petitioner in that dispute on that date could not be present before the labour court at 10-30 a.m. and the labour court thereupon purported to pass an ex parte order as contemplated by Rule 16 of the Uttar Pradesh industrial Disputes Rules. Half an hour later the representative of the petitioner appeared but was told that an ex parte order had been passed and he could not file a written statement. Subsequently under Clause (2) of Rule 16 the petitioner filed an application for the setting aside of the ex parte order and showed cause but the application was rejected. It was directed that the petitioner could if it liked cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent 2 when they were produced. By the present petition the petitioner wants the orders of 16 March and 4 May 1961 to be quashed by a writ of certiorari. It also claims a writ of mandamus directing the labour court not to hold ex parte proceedings against the petitioner but to treat the petitioner company as having entered appearance duly in accordance with law and to permit the petitioner to file its written statement and to participate in the proceedings.

(2.) The petition is contested on the ground that no one put in appearance on 16 March, the date fixed, and no attempt was made to file a written statement on the date fixed. It is also said that as no sufficient cause had been made out the subsequent application of the petitioner was rightly rejected.

(3.) Rule 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules under which the ex parte order was passed reads: