SYED JALAL Vs. LABOUR COURT A P HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Certain charges were framed against him and an enquiry was held and he was removed from service by an order dated 21-2-73. After unsuccessful appeal to the authorities of the Corporaion, he applied to the Government that the dispute may be referred for adjudication under the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. Accordingly, the Government referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Hyderabad, the following dispute;

(2.) Notices were issued to both the parties after registering the reference as l.D.75/76. The workman on whom the notice was duly served did not appear on 15-6-76 when he was required to file his claim statement. The matter was adjourned to 14-7-76 and on that day also, he didnot turn up; nor did he submit his claim statement. The Labour Court, therefore, observing that in the circums'ances, it was obliged to draw an inference that he was not interested in the matter and there was no point in keeping the matter pending any longer, closed the matter and passed a 'nil' award. The pstitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the 'nil' award.

(3.) Under Sec. 15 of the Industrial Disputs Act, where an industrial dispute hasbeen referred to a Labour Court, it shall hold its proceedings expeditiously and shall as soon as it is practicable on the conclusion thereof, submit its award to the appropriate Government. Under Rule 12 of the A.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, the parties representing the workman and the employer involved in the dispute shall file with the Labour Court all statement of demands relating the issues only as are included in the order of reference and shall also forward a copy of such statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in the said dispute. Under Rule 12(2), within two weeks of the receipt of the statement referred to in subrule (1) the opposite party shall file its rejoinder with the Labour Court and simultaneously forward a copy thereof to the other party. It is seen from a perusal of this rule, that there is an independent obligation on each of the parties viz , the workman and the employer to file claim statement, not depending upon whether the other party has filed a claim statement or not, The procedure is not analogous to a proceeding in a civil court where a plaintiff filed the plaint and thereafter, the defendant files bis written statement in answer to the allegations contained in the plaint. In this case, the Labour Court has remarked that the workman did not file his claim statement, but it is also did not file the Statement as required by Rule 12. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Labour Court erred in referrng only to the non-filing of the claim statement by the workman and observing that he was not interested in matter. If, by reason of not filing a statement, it is to be concluded that one of the parties to the dispute is not interested in the matter, it would equally follow that the R.T.C. also is not filing the statement could be said to be not interested in the matter. Having regard to the fact that both parties were equally at fault in not filing the statements and in placing the Labour Court in an unenviable position of not being able to proceed with the matter, we consider that the appropriate order to be passed in this case is to set aside the 'nil' award passed by the Labour Court and direct the Labour Court to enquire into the dispute afresh. The learned advocates of both sides assure this court that the parties whom each of them represents, will file the statement within one month from today before the abourCourt. Meanwhile, this order will be despatched to the Labour Court. The writ petition is allowed accordingly, but there will be no order as to costs.