MERITEE INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. The respondent No. 3, an employee of the petitioner was subjected to an inquiry pursuant to a charge- sheet issued to him. The Enquiry Officer had fixed a date for holding inquiry into the charges, which included threatening and assault. By a letter dated 19-2-1987 the Enquiry Officer informed that he is unable to hold the inquiry because of the threat hurled by the respondent No. 3. By an order dated 19- 2-1987 the services of the respondent No. 3 were terminated by the petitioner without holding inquiry, in view of the circumstances mentioned in the said letter. There upon an Industrial dispute was raised, which was referred by an order dated 31-1-1989, out of which Adjudication Case No. 300 of 1989 was regis tered. The workman had filed his written statement on 6-12-1989. The employer had also filed its written statement on 12-1-1990. After the workman had filed his rejoinder statement, the Labour Court directed the respondent No. 3 by an order dated 16-5-1991 to lead evidence. Instead of leading evidence the respondent No. 3 filed an application for direction that the management should lead evidence first and the order directing the work man to lead evidence should be recalled. An objection was also filed by the petitioner on 3-7-1991. The Labour court by order dated 30-11-1991 revie wed its earlier order and directed the petitioner to lead evidence in support of its case.

(2.) SRI Rakesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner contends at the first place that the Labour court has no jurisdiction to review its earlier order. U. P. Industrial Disputes Act does not provide any such jurisdic tion. I am unable to agree with the said contention. Inasmuch as the pro visions have been made in the Act and the Rules, framed thereunder, that the order for ex parte hearing can be recalled, if an application is made within thirty days. It has also been held that even the Award can be re called, if an application is made before the Award becomes final. There fore, it shows that the power to review or recall its order has been provided in certain cases. Then again the Tribunal has to decide and adopt proce dure on its own since no procedure as such is provided for in the said Act. By reason thereof I am unable to accept the contention of SRI Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner"