VINODCHANDRA MATHUBHAI BHATT Vs. SHAH MALLABEL CASTINGS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition is directed against the orders of the Labour Court allowing an application for restoring the complaint which was disposed of ex-parte and the order of the Industrial Court in the revision application filed against the order of the Labour Court. Both these orders show extreme non-application of mind and this may be due to incompetence or something more than meets the eye.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 though served, has chosen to remain absent. On an earlier occasion when the matter came up for hearing, the advocate for the Petitioner was directed to give fresh notice since nobody appeared for the Respondent.

(3.) THE Petitioner joined service of Respondent No. l and was confirmed after four months. He was promoted thereafter. On 2. 1. 1978, the Petitioner was dismissed from service by Respondent No. 1. A complaint was, therefore, filed by the Petitioner under Item 1 of schedule IV of the MP. TU and PULP 4 before the Labour court, Bombay. Respondent No. 1 appeared and in its reply raised the issue as to the maintainability of the complaint since according to Respondent No. 1, the petitioner was not a workman. it appears that in April, 1979 the management of Respondent No. 1 changed. However Respondent No. 1 continued to be represented before the Labour Court. The Petitioner was then examined on the preliminary issue as to whether he was a workman. The evidence of one S. M. Rane was led on behalf of the Respondent on the preliminary issue. After the evidence was recorded, the Labour Court on 8. 3. 1985 came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was a workman. Being aggrieved by this order, Respondent no. 1 preferred the revision application under section 44 of the Act before the Industrial Court. The Revision application was dismissed by the Industrial Court on 27. 10. 1986. In 1987, the advocate for Respondent No. 1 withdraw his appearance, Therefore, the Labour Court issued two notices to Respondent No. 1 on 27. 8. 1987 and 8. 12. 1987. It appears that Respondent No. 1 remained absent, despite these notices being received by him. Therefore, on 13. 8. 1987, the Petitioner filed an application praying that the complaint be decided ex-parte. By the same application the petitioner informed the Court that the Court Receiver has been appointed in respect of Respondent No. 1. On 16. 9. 1987, the Petitioner filed an affidavit by way of examination in chief wherein he has mentioned about the lockout of the Respondent-company. The Labour Court allowed the complaint on 16. 16. 1987, On 8. 12. 1987, the Petitioner called upon Respondent No. 1 to pay him the dues payable under the order including backwages from 2. 1. 1978 to 31. 12. 1985 and compensation equivalent to 3 months salary. After almost a year of receiving the notice on 1. 10. 1988, Respondent No. 1 preferred an application for setting aside the order dated 16. 16. 1987 and for a stay of the recovery proceedings instituted by the petitioner. The Petitioner opposed the application and sought to deposit of the backwages and other dues. by the order dated 13. 10. 1989, the Labour Court granted a conditional stay of the recovery on Respondent No. 1 depositing Rs. 45,000/- in the Court. Since this amount was not deposited, the recovery certificate was issued for Rs. 45,000/- on 18. 6. 1990.