EXPO MACHINERY LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner employer, by this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the ex parte award of the Labour Court (Annexure P-2) dated 15-7-1987 directing reinstatement and the order dated 10-8-1987, modifying the award of reinstatement with back wages and the order dated 20-2-1991 dismissing the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte award.

(2.) FACTS are not in much dispute. Respondent No. 4 was employed on 1-12-1981 in the establishment of the petitioner whose services were terminated vide order dated 27-4-1983. The Respondent No. 4 raised an industrial dispute which was referred under Sections 10 and 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act') for adjudication of the Labour Court at Bhopal. The Labour Court issued the notice to the parties. The respondent No. 4 filed its statement of claim so as also the petitioner filed the written statement taking plea that the respondent No. 4 was employed as Sales Officer therefore, does not fall within the definition of 'workman' as defined in Section 2 (s) of the Act. On the date fixed for recording of the evidence i. e. 3-7-1986, the petitioner did not appear, therefore, the Labour Court ordered to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. Ultimately ex parte award was passed on 15-7-1987, wherein the Labour Court after appreciating the evidence and materials adduced on record directed reinstatement without back wages. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 filed an application for review/modification of the award for awarding back wages. The Labour Court holding that it was a clerical error modified the award without notice to the petitioner and awarded back wages. This modified award was also sent for publication to Labour Commissioner, Indore, which then was published and pronounced. The petitioner having come to know that the ex parte award has been passed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte award was filed, on the ground that the petitioner engaged the counsel, but, as the lawyers were abstaining from the work therefore, counsel wrote to the petitioner that the date of hearing will be intimated to the petitioner, till then petitioner need not come, the petitioner did not appear. This application was opposed. The petitioner examined his manager and exhibited three letters of the Advocate which are at pages 37, 38 and 39 of the paper book. The Labour Court after appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the application holding that no sufficient cause has been established as the letters exhibited are afterthought and made up documents.

(3.) SHRI R. K. Gupta and Shri C. M. Lal, counsel for the petitioner and Shri L. P. Bhargawa, Sr. Advocate with Shri H. C. Kohli and Shri Naindiratta counsel for respondent No. 4 heard.