SETTLEMENT OFFICER, SIROHI Vs. DILIP KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.3.2002 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4058/2001. The respondent workman was employed on daily wage basis by the appellant by its order dated 16.4.1993. Subsequently, after about a period of ten months, on 7.2.1994 his services were terminated. The order of termination came to be challenged by the respondent workman by means of writ petition before this Court, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 836/1994. After issuance of the notice in the writ petition, the appellants filed a reply. In the reply, it was stated to the effect that the writ petition was not competent as the to respondent workman had an alternative remedy available to him under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, referred to hereinafter as 'the Act'). In support of its submission, the appellant relied upon the decision of this Court in Gopilal Teli's case, reported in 1895(2) WLC (Raj.) 1. On 19.9.1995, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by upholding the plea of the appellant. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge also observed that the respondent was free to avail the alternative remedy within one month in accordance with law.

(2.) As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, the respondent workman approached the appropriate Government for referring the industrial dispute to the Labour Court. The State by its order dated 6.9.1996 referred the dispute viz., whether or not the termination of the workman's services is valid and whether the workman was entitled to any relief, to the Labour Court. On 5,2.1997, when the matter was listed before the Labour Court the appellant sought time to file reply to the claim petition of the respondent workman. On the next date i.e., 5.3.1997, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. On 06.09.1997, again there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant. Due" to the absence of the appellant, the matter was set ex-parte and the same was directed to be listed for final disposal on 27.9.1997. Thereupon, the appellant filed an application for setting aside the order dated 27.9.1997. On 2.12.1997, the order setting the appellant ex parte was set aside by the Labour Court subject to payment of costs of Rs. 400.00 by the appellant. On 2.12.1997 itself, the appellant filed reply to the claim petition and the matter was fixed for 13.2,1998. On 13.2.1998, the Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, the matter could not be taken up on that date and it was fixed for 7.3.1998. It is important to note that on 13.2.1998 no one was present on behalf of the appellant and even costs were not deposited. On 7.3.1998 again no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. In the circumstances, the Labour Court proceeded to hear the arguments in absence of the appellant and directed listing of the matter on 28.3.1998 for pronouncement of the order. On 28.3.1998, the Labour Court passed an ex parte award setting aside the order terminating the services of the respondent workman.

(3.) After about a period of 39 days from the date of pronouncement of the award, the appellant on 7.5.98 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, to C.P.C. before the Labour Court for setting aside the ex parte award mainly on the ground that one of the Officers Vijay Raj, who was to appear in the Court on behalf of the appellant suddenly fell ill and was not able to attend the Court on 7.3.1998. The Labour Court rejected the application on 9.8.2001 Since the appellant failed to implement the award passed by the Labour is Court, the respondent workman filed an application under Sec. 33C(ii) of the Act seeking implementation of the award. The appellant then moved a writ petition before this Court on 24.9.2001 calling in question the ex parte award of the Labour Court and its order dated 9.8.2001 rejecting the application of the appellant for setting aside the ex parte award. The learned tingle Judge, on hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition by order dated 21.3.2002 inter alia on the ground that the State was negligent in prosecuting its case before the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there was no justification for the absence of the appellant on 7.3.1998. The learned Single Judge pointed out that mere illness of one of the Officers cannot absolve the other officer-in-charge from the responsibility to appear before the Court. In this regard, the learned Single Judge observed as follows: