MALIK DAIRY FARMS Vs. ITS WORKERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to challenge under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India the legality of an ex parte order made by the first labour court at Bombay. The petitioners are a partnership firm doing business of selling milk. One Rambali Subkaran was an employee of the petitioners. He is represented by a trade union which is respondent 1 to this petition. Rambali Subkaran claimed that he was wrongfully dismissed from service by the petitioners and his claim was taken up by respondent 1 union. The State Government referred the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act to the labour court. On 19 September, 1965, the union filed before the labour court its statement of claim. It was alleged in the statement of claim that while the employee Rambali Subkaran was doing his work on 11 March, 1965, a sharp wire pierced the middle finger of his right hand, that he intimated the petitioners about the accident, that he was under medical treatment for a number of days as the wound had become septic, that when he applied on 7 April, 1965 for permission to resume duty the manager of the petitioners refused to accept his application unless he gave in writing that he was not injured in the course of his employment and that he was removed from service because he refused to give such a writing. The union prayed that the employee should be reinstated to his post with full back-wages.

(2.) The petitioners filed their written statement to the statement of claim on 7 October, 1965. It was averred therein that the employee's injury was not received during the course of his duty; that he had asked leave and leave was granted to him, that he did not report for work at the end of the period of leave and that after waiting for some days, his name was struck off the muster-roll.

(3.) It appears that the reference was fixed for hearing before the labour court on different dates but was not heard for one reason or other. It was fixed for hearing on 9 February, 1967, when both the parties ware absent. On that day the hearing of the reference was adjourned to 15 March, 1967. On 15 March, 1967, the union was present but not the petitioners. The labour court heard the reference ex parte, entertained an affidavit filed by the employee and adjourned the reference for making an award. The award was signed on 17 March, 1967 and a copy thereof was received by the petitioners on 20 April, 1967. The validity of the award has been challenged in the present petition.