VISHWASRAO MAHADEO SHELKE Vs. RAMSHARAN HARIPRASAD BELLARIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a managing partner of the partnership firm carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Parvati Chitra Mandir, Kolhapur. The petition arises from the facts mentioned hereinbelow.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that from 1-8-1986 the respondent No. 1, workman employed by the petitioner did not attend his duties. The said workman, however, filed an application for wages from 1-8-1986 to 31-5-1987 under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act and succeeded in getting 10 months wages from the authority under the said Act. The said workman again filed an application in January 1992 under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming wages for the period from 1-6-1987 to 31-12-1991. It is an admitted position on the part of the petitioner that a Court notice requiring the petitioner to appear and file written statement was received. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner had engaged an Advocate and instructed him to take necessary steps in the matter. It however, appears that the said Advocate did not take any steps in the matter and not even a written statement opposing the complaint was filed on behalf of the petitioner. The reason put forward for not doing so was that the parties were negotiating for settlement and the petitioner was under an impression that the dispute will be amicably settled and that no written statement etc. was required. Having remained under the said impression, it appears that no steps of any nature were taken by the petitioner and his firm. The respondent workman, however, did not remain under the said impression and obtained an ex parte order on 16-12-1992 whereby the Labour Court had determined and computed the amount on the basis of an affidavit filed by the workman and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 45,433/- to the respondent being his entitlement. On receipt of recovery notice from the land revenue authorities, the petitioner appears to have filed an application under Rule 26 (2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 for setting aside the ex parte order passed by the Labour Court and for restoration of the original main application for hearing. The ground for non appearance in the matter is, as I have already stated, the compromise talks between the parties and that the Advocate did not attend the matter for this reason. Along with the said application, the petitioner had also filed an application for stay of the execution of the order dated 16-12-1992. The Labour Court was pleased to stay the execution on a condition directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,000/- in the Court within a week from the date of the order and the matter was kept for hearing the main application for restoration on the next date. It appears from the record that the petitioner had accordingly deposited a sum of Rs. 12,000/- in the Labour Court on 15-5-1993. The Labour Court passed its final order on the application for stay, Exh. 2 on 5th July, 1993 dismissing the said application for stay of the execution of the order.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order below Exh. 2 dated 5th July 1993. It is an admitted position that the Misc. Application No. IDA 3/93 in ID Application No. 8 of 1992 for setting aside the ex parte order is still pending before the Labour Court and has not yet been finally decided and disposed of. Shri Bukhari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a grievance that in spite of obeying the deposit order the execution of the main ex parte order was not stayed. According to him, if the Labour Court had directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,000/- as a condition precedent for stay of the execution, the Labour Court could not have finally dismissed the application for stay. I find much substance in the contention of Shri Bukhari that once having imposed a condition on the petitioner and the petitioner having accepted the same, his application for stay could not have been finally dismissed. I fail to understand how the Labour Court had dismissed the application when earlier, he had imposed a condition of deposit of Rs. 12,000/- for stay of the application of the ex parte order. According to me, instead of hearing the application for stay, the Labour Court ought to have finally decided the application for setting aside the ex parte order which was pending before him.