MODI SUGAR MILLS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shakti Swaroop Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shyam Narain, senior advocate assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Narain, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 3.4.2006, Annexure-7 to the writ petition passed by respondent No. 2 and award dated 16.12.2003 published on 30.4.2004, Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

(3.) Sri Shakti Swaroop Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that from the perusal of the award it is clear that the award is an ex parte award without any notice and opportunity to the petitioner. From the perusal of the finding recorded, it is clear that a registered notice was sent but the acknowledgement due was not returned back, therefore, the Court has presumed that service upon the petitioner is sufficient and the ex parte order has been passed. Further only the claim of the workman-respondent on the basis of the written statement and the affidavit has been considered, therefore, in the eye of law, it cannot be said that it is an award to be in force. The learned counsel for the partitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (III) U.P., Kanpur and another, LLJ 2002 Page 155. Taking support of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute to the effect that notices were issued by registered post but as the acknowledgement due was never received back after service, in that circumstance, the Court has held that it is difficult to hold that the petitioner deliberately did not appear in spite of the notice. Further the petitioner has submitted that in view of Section 12 (9) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which provides that if the affidavit of accompanying written statement of the workman is not rebutted by the employer, the Labour Court shall presume the contents of the affidavit to be true and make an award accepting the fact stated in the written statement. But it cannot be thus construed to mean that the entire averments made in the affidavit without any documentary evidence have to be accepted in toto without examining the same judicially. The Labour Law being a welfare legislation may not require a strict procedure to be followed. As it has been held in Supreme Court case Bharat Bank Ltd. Delhi v. The Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd., AIR 1950 SC 188, in such circumstances learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside and the petitioner be given an opportunity to be heard and the award should be passed on merit.