BABU RAM BANSAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BABU Ram Bansal, present petitioner, has filed the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 6. 6. 1985 passed by respondent No. 1 i. e. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar, dismissing his application for the restoration of the application under Section 17 (2) of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act' ). The petitioner has also prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to restore his application regarding the recovery of money from various newspaper establishments, i. e. respondents Nos. 2 to 6, and the case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is that he was working as a Journalist with respondents Nos. 2 to 6. His emoluments were not paid to him. He made an application regarding the recovery of money from respondents Nos. 2 to 6. This application was referred to the Labour Court, Jalandhar under Section 17 (2) of the Act for adjudication. This application was registered as Reference No. 255-A of 1986, and the same was supposed to be decided by the Labour Court, respondent No. 1. However, it was dismissed on 6. 6. 1985 for want of prosecution vide Annexure P1. On the said date the petitioner sent two applications by registered post. In one of the applications request was made to the Labour Court that the case be transferred to the Labour Court, Bhatinda. In the other application request was made for the adjournment of the case because from 1. 6. 1985 there was a 'ghallu Ghara Saptah' and there was great rumour that the transport would not operate during that week. For that reason the petitioner was apprehensive in his mind that he could not go to Jalandhar as he had the feeling that he might be stranded on the way to Jalandhar. The petitioner then moved an application dated 20. 7. 1985, presented on 23. 7. 1985, for the restoration of the application dismissed on 6. 6. 1985. The summonses were issued on the application dated 20. 7. 1985 for 29. 8. 1985. The petitioner contacted Shri Ram Singh to pursue his case before the Labour Court, Jalandhar, since he was a resident of Mansa, thus could not attend the Court himself. A proper authorisation to appear on Form 'f' was given by the petitioner to Shri Ram Singh and presuming that Shri Ram Singh will appear and look after the case, the petitioner did not appear on 29. 8. 1985, as a result of which the application dated 20. 7. 1985 filed on 23. 7. 1985 was dismissed on that date. Again an application dated 4. 9. 1985 was moved on 16. 9. 1985 for the restoration of the application dated 20. 7. 1985 and for the restoration of Reference No. 255-A, which was dismissed in default on 6. 6. 1985. This application, i. e. , 4. 9. 1985 was also dismissed by the Labour Court on 10. 3. 1987 for untenable reasons. The petitioner has averred in his writ petition that the Labour Court committed an error in holding that Ram Singh was not an authorised representative of the workman. In fact, proper authority was given to him. Even the order dated 6. 6. 1985 passed by the Labour Court was erroneous because during those days the situation in Punjab was so explosive, tense and panicky, there was every likelihood that the passenger bus service may be stopped on the way, making the passengers impossible to return to the home during night. Earlier the management was also not taking any interest and it was not appearing before the Labour Court. The reasons given by the Labour Court in dismissing the application dated 20/23. 7. 1985 are totally erroneous. Moreover, the poof litigant should not be allowed to suffer from the mistake, if any, committed by the authorised representative. With the above averments, the prayer regarding which I have already made a mention above.

(2.) NOTICE of the writ petition was given to the respondents. A joint affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Some preliminary objections were taken by these respondents to the effect that the petitioner earlier filed an identical claim application under Section 33-C (2)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court at Bhatinda seeking to recover the same amounts allegedly due to him from the said respondents for the period for which he filed application before the State Government under Section 17 (2) of the Act. The said application was dismissed by the Labour Court, Bathinda, on merits, vide an order dated 12. 3. 1987 after hearing the management. The petitioner did not appear before the Labour Court, Bathinda. The order passed by the Labour Court, Bhatinda, i. e. , dated 12. 3. 1987 is Annexure R1. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed since the order dated 12. 3. 1987 (R1) has become final. On merits these respondents have also denied the averments of the writ petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner intentionally did not appear before the Labour Court on 6. 6. 1985 and on 29. 8. 1985, and, therefore, the impugned orders dated 6. 6. 1985, 29. 8. 1985 and 10. 3. 1987 are perfectly valid. The petitioner did not give any authority letter in favour of Ram Singh. Had any authority been given to him before the Labour Court, Shri Ram Singh would have appeared on 29. 8. 1985 or would have made arrangements to seek adjournment, but he did not appear. The authority letter relied upon by the petitioner did not bear any application number nor did it bear any date. The Labour Court had rightly doubted the veracity of the authority letter, which was filed for the first time before the Labour Court on 16. 9. 1985. The findings given by the Labour Court in the order dated 10. 3. 1987 are correct and the relief claimed by the petitioner in the present petition cannot be allowed to him. No separate return was filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, i. e. , the Management of the Daily Milap, Jalandhar.

(3.) PERUSAL of the record shows that the petitioner Babu Ram Bansal filed an application under Section 17 (2) of the Act and claimed certain amounts. This application was submitted to the Government of Punjab, who forwarded the same to the Labour Court, Jalandhar under Section 17 (2) of the Act vide memo dated 29. 4. 1985 and reference No. 255-A of 1985 was registered.