UDAIPUR COTTON MILLS Vs. SUTI MILL MAZDOOR UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a special appeal under Section 18 (1) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, from the judgment of a learned single Judge, who summarily dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant M/s. Udaipur Cotton Mills (hereinafter referred to as "the Mills" ).

(2.) RESPONDENTS No. 2 Narainlal was employed as a fitter in the Engineering Department of the Mills. A charge-sheet was issued to Narainlal and after holding a depatrmental enquiry, the management dismissed Narainlal. Thereupon Narainlal approached the conciliation officer, Udaipur. However, no settlement could be arrived at in the course of the conciliation proceedings, and a failure report was sent by the conciliation officer. On March 13, 1973, the Government of Rajasthan referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court which served a notice on the management of the mills. On 22-6-1973 a statement of claim was filed by the union on behalf of Narainlal. Certain preliminary objections were raised on behalf of the mills but the same were rejected by the Labour Court by its order dated 6-91974. Aggrieved by the dismissal of preliminary objections by the Labour Court, the mills filed the writ petition on the following two grounds: (i) That no industrial dispute had been raised within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the workman had not made a demand for reinstatement from the management, and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the reference, and, (ii) That before proceeding to record evidence on merits the Labour Court was bound to decide as a preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was 'air' ? Both the objections taken by the appellant in the writ petition were repelled by the learned single Judge. Hence this special appeal.

(3.) THE second objection need not detain us long inasmuch as it had been submitted on behalf of the employer before the Labour Court that the management did not wish to produce any document or other evidence in support of his preliminary objections. It may further be stated that the workman made an application before the Labour Court that the management may be asked to produce the paper relating to the domestic enquiry, but the counsel for the management stoutly opposed this request and thus the document relating to the domestic enquiry were never produced. That is not all. The Labour Court also gave an opportunity to the management to lead evidence in support of the preliminary objections, but the employer did not lead any evidence and expressed a desire to argue on the preliminary objections without producing any evidence, It further appears that before the Labour Court the management did not press this preliminary objection. In these circumstances, no just exception can be taken to the finding of the learned Judge that it was not open to the milk to raise this objection.