DAMODARDAS BHAGAVANDAS PRIVATE LTD Vs. POONA LABOUR UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution which seeks to set aside an award dated 11 July, 1966 made by respondent 2, the industrial tribunal, Bombay, and an order dated 13 September, 1966 made by respondent 2, holding that he had no jurisdiction to set aside the said award and dismissing the petitioner's application to set it aside.

(2.) Respondent 1 is a trade union which represents the workmen of the petitioner-company. On 12 April, 1965, certain demands were raised by respondent 1 on behalf of the petitioner's workmen. On 13 July, 1965 the demands of the petitioner's workmen relating to fixing of pay-scales, leave and permanency were admitted in conciliation by the conciliation officer. As the conciliation proceedings proved infructuous, the conciliation officer, on 31 December, 1965, made his report to the Government of Maharashtra under S. 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On 16 February, 1966, the Government of Maharashtra referred the said demands to respondents 2 for adjudication under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, by a notice dated 22 February, 1966, the petitioner-company was called upon to file its written statement on or before 18 March, 1966. The time to file the written statement was subsequently extended on 10 March, 1966. By its notice dated 25 May, 1966 the tribunal intimated to the parties that the hearing would take place on 1 July, 1966. The petitioner-company neither filed its written statement nor remained present at the time of hearing and an award was passed by respondent 2 on 26 July, 1966 and was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 4 August, 1966. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before respondent 2 requesting him to set aside the said award and to hear the matter afresh. Respondent 2 held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the said application and, accordingly, he rejected the said application by his order dated 13 September 1966. It is against the said award and the said order that the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 227.

(3.) We really do not think it necessary in this case to consider the question whether the industrial tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an application to set aside an award passed in the absence of one of the parties in an application made by such party, since in our opinion no facts or circumstances are disclosed in the petition to induce this Court even to exercise his discretion and set aside the award and direct a rehearing of the dispute. The grounds for seeking to set aside the said award urged in the petition are :