HEENA RESTAURANT AND BAR Vs. MADHUKAR M DEWADIGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioners have challenged the ex parte order of the Labour Court in an application filed under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as well as the orders refusing to grant unconditional stay of the ex parte order and the recovery certificate issued pursuant thereto.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows : petitioner No. 1 is a Restaurant and Bar being run by petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who are its partners. The respondents, who are the workmen employed with the petitioners, filed an application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 21-10-1999 claiming minimum wages, overtime, wages for the weekly-off, leave wages and bonus. Calculations of the amounts claimed had been filed alongwith the application filed by the respondent-workmen individually. It appears that although the petitioners were served through the bailiff, the petitioners refused to accept the service. The Labour Court, therefore, on 17-6-2000 directed the matter to proceed ex parte and by an order dated 20-9-2000, the Labour Court held by a common judgment that all the respondent-workmen were entitled to amounts claimed by them. The petitioners were further directed to pay costs of Rs. 1,000/- to each of the workman. The Labour Court has observed that after the petitioners refused service through the bailiff, notices were sent to the petitioners under certificate of posting. However, the petitioners did not bother to attend the Court and resist the claim of the respondent-workmen and therefore, the Labour Court allowed the applications filed by the respondent-workmen.

(3.) AS the amounts were not paid by the petitioners, a Certificate for Recovery was issued on 26-2-2001 under section 33-C (4) of the Act certifying that a sum of Rs. 6,37,162/- plus Rs. 1,000/- to each workman was due and payable to respondent-workmen. On 28-2-2001, the petitioners received a copy of the certificate issued for recovery of the amounts of Rs. 6,37,162/- as arrears of land revenue. The petitioners obtained a copy of the order of the Labour Court passed in the application under section 33-C (2) of the Act and thereafter on 19-3-2001 filed one application for setting aside the ex parte order and for restoration of the five applications filed by the respondent-workmen. An application for stay of the certificate issued on 26-2-2001 and the ex parte order was also filed by the petitioners together with an affidavit in support. The respondent-workmen filed their affidavit objecting to any relief being granted to the petitioners. On 10-5-2001, the Labour Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the stay application on condition that the petitioners deposit in Court an amount of Rs. 3,18,581/- that is, 50% of the amount awarded together with the costs awarded to each of the respondent-workmen. The petitioners did not bother to comply with this order of the Labour Court and instead, filed another application on 18-6-2001 for modification of the order passed on 10-5-2001 by the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court refused to modify the order and dismissed the application. In the meantime, the Collector had already issued notice for recovery of Rs. 6,37,164/- as arrears of land revenue. The petitioners, therefore, having failed in their attempt to evade payment of the dues to the workmen, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present petition on 1-8-2001.