SARDA ENG. COMPANY Vs. M.A. SATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ petition, the order of the Labour Court -Ill, Hyderabad, in I.A.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 exparte award passed on 20.10.1993 in I.D.No.156 of 1993.

(2.) BRIEF facts, to the extent necessary, are that the first respondent herein filed .D.No.156 of 1993 on the file of the Labour Court -Ill, 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 29.6.80. 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 I.D. 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.) IN G. Veera Venkamma AIR 1981 A.P. 199, this Court held thus: