SUKH SINGH GEHLOT Vs. MANAGER AUTOMOBILE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against a no dispute award passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated June 10,1974,

(2.) THE petitioner alleged in the writ petition that he was working as a helper in the Automobile Cooperative Workshop Ltd., Jodhpur but his service was terminated by the respondent No. 1 with effect from October 21, 1971. The State Government made a reference regarding the validity of the termination of the petitioner's service to the Judge, Labour Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur by its notification dated February 7, 1972. On March 2, 1974 the learned Judge of the Labour Court fixed the next date of hearing on the matter as April 17,1974 for recorning the evidence of the petitioner and he also decided to hold the camp of Labour Court at Jodhpur on the aforesaid date. But the Judge did not hold the camp of his court at Jodhpur on April 17,1974 and on that date, while sitting at Jaipur, he passed an order to the effect that both the parties were absent and that the evidence also was not present and fixed June 1, 1974 as the next date of hearing. On the last mentioned date also the petitioner and his witnesses were not present and June 10,1974 was fixed as the next date on which a no dispute award was passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, on account of the absence of the petitioner.

(3.) IN Madjit Tannery v. Labour Court UP 1973 Factories and Labour Report 236 it was observed that if a party, who has been informed about the time and place of sitting as required by Rule 13, absents itself, the Court may make an Order Under Rule 16 directing the case to proceed ex -parte and in that event it may not be necessary for the court to give any further notice about its subsequent sating to the party concerned. But if a party has no information about the date fixed for the sitting of the court, then such a procedure cannot be followed. In that case May 7, 1969 was fixed for the sitting of the Labour Court and the parties concerned were informed about that date, but the Presiding Officer was on leave and no further date was fixed for the next sitting of the court; then the Labour Courttook up the mater on June, 25 1969 without any intimation of that date to the petitioner. It was held that as the petitioner was not made aware of the adjourned date fixed for the hearing of the case, the Labour Court illegally proceeded Under Rule 16 without informing the party concerned.