PREMIER REFRIGERATION LTD Vs. SADASHIV B POOJARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 276 of 2001 whereby an ex parte award was passed in favour of respondent No. 1 and the petitioner herein was directed to reinstate the respondent No. 1 with continuity of service and with full back-wages with effect from September 9, 1998. The petitioner is also challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court in complaint (ULP) No. 426 of 2006 dated august 14, 2006 whereby the petitioner herein was directed to reinstate the respondent No. 1 in terms of the award made in Reference (IDA) No. 276 of 2001.

(2.) Brief facts are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Driver on probation on november 7, 1986 and a letter of appointment to that effect was issued by the petitioner-Company. A demand was raised by the 1st respondent on the ground that his services were terminated on September 9, 1998 and the dispute was referred for the adjudication vide Reference (IDA) No. 276 of 2001. It is the case of the petitioner that no notice of this reference was ever served on the petitioner-Company and only when miscellaneous Criminal Complaint being criminal Complaint No. 125 of 2006 was served on the petitioner-Company, it came to know about the ex-parte award dated March 15, 2005 which was passed by the Labour Court. The ex-parte award was pursuant to the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour which was to be published by the State of maharashtra on June 29, 2006 and, thereafter, a complaint was filed before the Industrial Court for implementation of the ex-parte award and the Industrial Court by order dated August 14, 2006 directed the petitioner to implement the ex-parte award published on June 29, 2006.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent had failed to issue notice under Rule 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay Rules) , 1957 and the provisions of the said Rule had not been complied with and, as a result, there was a breach or principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was given to the petitioner-Company to state its case before the Labour court. He submitted that the Labour Court had merely on the basis of bailiff s report held that the petitioner-Company was served. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of enron Oil and Gas India Ltd. v. Sylvia James nazareth (Ms. ) and Another reported in 2003-III-LLJ (Suppl) -373 (Bom). He then submitted that the learned Labour Court has proceeded to pass the award though there was no justification for passing the impugned award. He invited my attention to the award passed by the Labour Court and submitted that the Labour Court had erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was a permanent employee only on the basis of clause in the letter of appointment which stated that the respondent No. 1 would be appointed on probation for a period of six months. He submitted that the Labour Court had erred in arriving at a conclusion that the services of the petitioner were confirmed. Mr. Pal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also, on merits, tried to point out that the order of the Labour Court was illegal. He submitted that since no opportunity was given to the petitioner to argue its case on merits, the matter was liable to be remanded on payment of costs. He also relied upon the judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Abhujit Gupta v. S. N. B. National Centre, Basic Sciences and others reported in 2006 II CLR 317.