STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been tiled challenging the impugned award of the Labour Court, De-hradun dated April 26, 1991 Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 claims to he an employee of the petitioner who had been employed from 1986 to 1994 i.e. for about eight years, after which he was not allowed to work. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. The respondent No. 2 filed a written statement alleging that Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act had been violated and his termination of service was arbitrary. Some representatives of the employer, i.e. the petitioner in this writ petition, appeared before the Labour Court on February 7, 19% and was granted 20 days time to file written statement but no written statement was filed and hence the award was given ex-parte on April 26, 1996, Subsequently a review application dated August 2, 1996 was filed which was rejected by order dated November 7, 1996, hence this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) In this case which is coming up before this Court it is found that ex-parte award or orders are being passed against the State Government or State Corporations or statutory authority simply because the litigation is not taken seriously by the concerned officers before the concerned court or authority. It is obvious that these concerned officers of the State Government or of the State Corporations have no personal liability in the matter and hence they are not bothered and take the litigation casually and orders are allowed to be passed ex-parte. The time has now come that these officers must be made to realise their personal liability in such matters, in private concerns the cases are taken seriously and seriously contested because there is a personal interest in the matter, hut so tar as the State Government or the State owned or controlled Corporations are concerned their officers very often do not take the litigation seriously and allow orders to be passed ex-parte against the Government or the Corporation or the Statutory body either because of gross negligence or due to collusion. This is a highly irresponsible way of functioning and the burden of such ex-parte order falls ultimately on the tax payer, while the officer responsible escapes all liability. The time has come when this practice must be stopped and the officer concerned is penalised personally.