PRAKASH MISHRA Vs. CENTRAL INSTITUTE FOR COTTON RESEARCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the Act). The petitioner who was dismissed from the service by the respondent, filed a complaint case under Ss. 28 and 30 of the Act for getting a declaration that in dismissing him from service the respondent has committed an unfair labour practice. He also claimed a relief of reinstatement and of backwages in the said complaint case. He had filed an application for interim relief under S. 30(2) of the Act. However, the said application was dismissed on 18-3-1983. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a revision against the order rejecting his application for interim relief before the Industrial Court under S. 44 of the Act. While the said revision application was pending for hearing before the Industrial Court, his main case itself came to be dismissed in default on 19-7-1983.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the main application was fixed for evidence for the first time in 1983 after his application for interim relief was rejected. As the main application was dismissed in default, the petitioner made an application for setting aside the said order on 22-7-1983. The learned Labour Court by its order dated 1-10-1983 held that the petitioner had failed to prove sufficient cause for non-appearance on 19-7-1983. It also held that in the absence of a specific direction from the Court for adducing the evidence by an affidavit, the affidavit on behalf of the petitioner in support of the application for setting aside the order could not be treated as evidence. The learned Labour Court, therefore, rejected the application for setting aside the order passed by it on 19-7-1983.

(3.) The petitioner preferred a revision under S. 44 of the Act before the Industrial Court against the aforesaid order of the Labour Court dated 1-10-1983. The learned Industrial Court held that the affidavit filed by the petitioner could be treated as evidence in the light of the decisions brought to its notice by the petitioner but the Industrial Court held that the affidavit filed by the petitioner is not a regular affidavit but it merely is a solemn affirmation. The learned Industrial Court also referred to the pursis (Exh. 13), upon which the respondent had given a note that since the petitioner did not want to lead any evidence, it would mean that he did not desire to undergo cross-examination by the respondent. The learned Industrial Court accepted the aforesaid plea raised in the note on Exh. 13 given on behalf of the respondent. The result was that the revision filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Industrial Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.