JHARIA FIRE BRICKS AND POTTERY Vs. BHIRGONATH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner (hereinafter called "the company") for quashing the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro steel City, dated 10.10.1975 (Annexure. 4) whereby the company was directed to pay Rupees 19, 487.54 to respondent No 1. The present application-arises in the following circumstances:

(2.) One Harinandan Sharma, father of respondent No. 1 was a workman in the factory of the company. He was taken ill of consumption in 1956 and continued to he afflicted of the malady nor considerable length of time. His period of absence was reckoned as on leave till 6.1.1960 by the company. As the workman was unable to join his duties even thereafter, his services were terminated by the company. That led to an industrial dispute. The matter relating to the termination of the employment of Harinandan Sharma was subject-matter of Reference No. 3 of 1963. The reference under Section 10(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") came to a conclusion on 1.8.1963 by an order of the Labour Court which directed reinstatement of Harinandan Sharma with consequential benefits. The company, however, did not take it lying down. A writ application was filed by the company before this Court for quashing the order of the Labour Court which came up for consideration in M.J.C. No. 813 of 1963. The writ application filed by the company was dismissed, by a Bench of this Court on 25.2.1966, reported in A.I.R. 1966 Pat. 291. The company pursued the matter farther. An application was filed before this Court for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court. The application for grant of certificate was also rejected by this Court on 25.8.1967 and was not pursued any further. Although the company was worsened before the judicial Courts and Tribunals, it managed to resist reinstatement of the workman till December, 1967. On 23.12.1967 Harinandan Sharma never reported for duty and, therefore, the company could not reinstate him. This tuition has been contested by respondent No. 1 Harinandan Sharma having failed in his efforts to enjoy the fruits awarded to him by the Labour Court, respondent No. 1 his son filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Act. The application was contested by the company. The matter dragged on for several years and was ultimately brought to a conclusion by an ex parte order dated 10.10.1975 whereby the Labour Court held that a sum of Rs. 19,487.54 was due to the respondent against the Management. The company being aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court has, therefore, filed the present application.

(3.) Two points have been urged in sup port of the rule issued in this case. The points urged were as follows: