PURAFIL ENGINEERS Vs. SHAIKH ANWAR ABDUL RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Nighot for the Petitioner employer. Inspite of two notices of this Court the Respondent workman has not remained present. Even before the Labour Court he remained absent and got the Reference rejected for default. The Labour Court thereafter restored the Reference on his Application for restoration under Rule 26 (2) under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by its order dated May 2, 1997. I have gone through the impugned Order which appears to have been passed merely on a subjective feeling that the workman should be given a chance. There are no good and sufficient grounds given by the workman for his absence in the Court resulting into an ex-parte Award rejecting the Reference. While considering the issue of setting aside ex-parte award the Labour Court ought not to have lost sight of the merits of the matter also. The party seeking to set aside an ex-parte order must also point out that it has a good case on merits and that serious prejudice would cause if the matter was not heard on merits. The workman has not even whispered about his case on merits. In the present case the employer in his Written Statement before the Labour Court has very clearly stated that the services of the workman were never terminated and that he was free to join the service if he so desired. The Written Statement was filed on May 5, 1992. The relevant para No. 7 of the Written Statement reads as under.

(2.) THEREAFTER also the workman never offered to join the services and remained away. If this is the case of the workman on merits, the plea of the employer is prima facie, very strong that he had never terminated the services of the workman and that the workman is merely' contesting the Reference not for bona fide relief or for reinstatement which was offered by the employer long back in 1992 and the workman never accepted the offer of reinstatement even without prejudice to his contention. The only inference which is inescapable is that he is not interested in reinstatement but only back wages. While considering the Application of the workman to restore his Reference to file for adjudication on merits the Labour Court ought to have considered this very strong point in favour of the employer who had offered to reinstate the workman as far back as in 1992.

(3.) IT is a clear case of abuse of the Court machinery by the workman who is really not interested in reinstatement. The Labour Laws are not meant to harass the employers but to get injustice undone. This machinery cannot be exploited to exact mere money from the employers in an unjust way. It is very clear from the conduct of the workman that he is not interested in reinstatement. And since he was offered reinstatement in 1992, he will not be entitled to get any wages from the date of that offer which was not accepted by the workman. According to me, there is no case for the workman even on merits. The Labour Court was not justified in restoring the Reference for adjudication. There was no good and sufficient cause for the workman to remain continuously absent in the Court. He was absent before me also.