VIKRANT KUMAR BISWAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition was directed to be listed for hearing today marked at 10:30 A.M. It has been so listed and called on. Petitioner appears in person. Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate and Amicus Curiae also appears. Mr. Kumar, learned Advocate appears on behalf of Opposite Party No.3. Mr. Ruplal, learned Advocate appears and files Vakalatnama. He submits he has been engaged by Opposite Party No.2. He prays for four weeks' time for his client to use counter. Opposite Party No.4 goes un-represented.

(2.) Perused the order-sheet. It appears, Mr. Ruplal was engaged to appear on behalf of Opposite Party No.5. He has now been empowered by Opposite Party No.2 as well. Opposite Party No.5 is Regional Manager, Customer Care of Tata Motors Limited and Opposite Party No.2, Tata Motors itself. Both Vakalatnamas were executed, in respect of Opposite Party Nos.5 & 2, by same person of Tata Motors, based in Kolkata. Furthermore, we on 20/12/2022 had satisfied ourselves that apart from Opposite Party No.3 all else had been served. We directed service on Opposite Party No.3. On it being made, Mr. Kumar had represented said Opposite Party, said by Petitioner to be his Employer, on 11/1/2023. Tata Motors by itself or through Opposite Party No.5 did not appear before the Labour Court. It is clear that Opposite Party Nos.2 & 5 were waiting in the wings and have now appeared with prayer for adjournment of four weeks. The prayer is rejected. All the more because Mr. Kumar has travelled to do this case physically and this was surely known by Opposite Party Nos.2 & 5.

(3.) On query from Court, Amicus Curiae submits, the industrial dispute went before the Labour Court on invoking provision in Sec. 2-A(2) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the circumstances, we do not have benefit of failure report on conciliation under Sec. 12(4).