SARADA ENGINEERING CO Vs. M A SATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the order of the Labour Court-in, Hyderabad, in LA. No.210 of 1994 in I.D.No.156 of 1993, is sought to be quashed and a consequential direction is sought to set aside the ex parte award passed on 20-10-1993 in I.D. No.156 of 1993. 2006(3) FR-F-29

(2.) Brief facts, to the extent necessary, are that the first respondent herein filed I.D. No.156 of 1993 on the file of the Labour Court-in, Hyderabad, contending that his termination amounted to victimization and was an unfair practice. The respondent workman alleged that no enquiry was held and that his services were terminated without following rules and regulations. The petitioner herein, filed its counter, and contended that the first respondent was a habitual absentee, that a show-cause notice dated 21-1-1988 was issued, wherein the period of absence and the leave availed by the first respondent were specified and that the first respondent submitted his explanation thereto on 24-2-1988, giving reasons for his absence, and had given a written undertaking permitting the petitioner to terminate his services unconditionally if he committed any further default in attending duty. Based on the first respondent's explanation, an enquiry was conducted and thereafter his services were terminated. Petitioner would submit that the first respondent filed I.D.No.156 of 1993 before the Labour Court and since he did not evince any interest in leading evidence, the I.D. was dismissed for default on 29-6-1980. The first respondent herein filed I.A.No.279 of 1989, which was allowed by the Labour Court, by order dated 2-7-1989, without notice to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, evidence of the first respondent was recorded on 19-6-1993 in three lines, at his request the matter was adjourned, he was recalled and examined on 18-10-1993 and his examination in chief was concluded. According to the petitioner, his Counsel Sri S. Subrahmanyam had informed him that he would be informed as to when his presence was essential as the first respondent-workman was not diligent in prosecuting the case. Petitioner would submit that he was under the bona fide impression that his Counsel would inform him of the date on which he was required to be present in Court and he, therefore, did not appear before the Labour Court on the date on which the ID. was adjourned. Petitioner would submit that their Counsel Sri S. Subrahmanyam expired in April, 1993 and this fact was brought to the notice of the Labour Court. During this period, the petitioner company was under severe financial crisis as there was litigation, between the petitioner company and persons to whom goods were supplied, the business of the petitioner-Company was completely shut, and the serious crisis in the Company resulted in deterioration of the health of the managing partner, Sri B. Venugopal, and he was under constant medical check up. Petitioner would submit that they were also not aware, till much later, that their Counsel Sri S. Subrahmanyam, had passed away.

(3.) The Labour Court passed an ex parte award on 20-10-1993 and immediately after the award was communicated, LA. No.210 of 1994 was filed to set aside the ex parte award. The Labour Court, while dismissing the I.A., by its order dated 9-5-1994, held that absence of the advocate, on the date of hearing, was not a ground to set aside the ex parte award. The Labour Court held that the judgment of this Court in G. Veera Venkamma v. M. Venkataramayya, AIR 1981 AP 199, was overruled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rafiq and another v. Munshilal, AIR 1983 SC 1400 (sic AIR 1981 SC 1400). The Labour Court held that the docket sheets in the case disclosed that right from 6-5-1993, several adjournments were given, that the evidence of the workman was recorded in part on 19-6-1993 and then adjourned from time to time, that the advocate Sri S. Subrahmanyam is said to have died in April, 1993 and after a lapse of four months, the evidence of the workman was completed and even then no interest was evidenced by the management. The Labour Court went into the merits of the matter and taking the view that the management intended only to prolong the litigation, dismissed the application. In G. Veera Venkamma, (supra), this Court held thus: