MANAGER M/S RATIONAL BUSINESS CORPORATION PVT. LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The management appeared before the Labour Court in Industrial Reference No.136 of 2013 when it was referred for adjudication by the labour department exercising power under Sec. 2 (a) (ii) read with Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). On appearance, the trial started. The workman's evidence was recorded and concluded. On Aug. 20, 2014 the management was expected to produce its defence witnesses etc. But it did not appear on Aug. 20, 2014 or be represented either through its own employee or through its authorised representative on the date fixed and consequently the Labour Court proceeded against the management ex parte. The ex parte award was announced on Oct. 01, 2014 which has gone against the management and in favour of the workman awarding relief of reinstatement etc.

(2.) Thereupon, the management filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside the ex parte award with a prayer to reopen the case on merits and permit the management to lead evidence in support of its case to deny relief claimed by the workman. The Labour Court has decided that application on merits and declined it after summary trial and has returned a finding positively disbelieving the story of the management of its non-appearance on Aug. 20, 2014 on the stock plea that the counsel had noted the wrong date in his daily cause diary.

(3.) The factum of non-appearance, or I may hazard to say, calculated avoidance of proceedings is a well worn doctrine of managements' defence of its lawyer's absence on the date fixed which has become such a common occurrence in pleadings that if ex parte orders and awards are recalled at the drop of the hat it might lead to emasculating the system of passing a contested award in the hope that on a future date the lacuna might lead to setting aside the impugned award and reopening the award to give an unfair advantage to the management to waylay the workman in his search for speedy justice against wrongful action. Besides this, management must remember that an Advocate is not permitted to appear before Labour Courts by virtue of the injunction in Sec. 36 of the Act and can be represented only through authorised representative. Therefore, the escape doctrine would not apply since the authorised representative of a party before the Labour Court is a dedicated agent of the party and is not expected to have a practise like an Advocate/Lawyer may have.