Supreme Court Dismisses Employer's Appeal Against Labour Court Order Holding Fresh Application Maintainable. Interpretation of Rule 16 of U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 Concludes That Dismissal for Default Is Not Permissible; Labour Court Must Proceed to Decide on Merits.

The litigation concerned a claim by workmen for recovery of the cost of uniforms not supplied during 1954–1960. An earlier application under Section 6-H(2) was dismissed for default. Fresh applications were filed, and the employer challenged their maintainability.

The workmen initially sought computation and recovery of uniform costs. When the employer objected to the fresh applications, the Labour Court was asked to rule on maintainability. The employer, after losing before the Labour Court and High Court, sought from the Supreme Court a ruling that the fresh applications were not maintainable.

The employer filed the writ petition and then the appeal because it contended that the workmen should have applied under Rule 16(2) to set aside the earlier dismissal for default, and that the fresh applications were barred.

The Labour Court dismissed the first application for default on 22-02-1964. On the fresh applications, the Labour Court held them maintainable on 10-02-1967. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the employer's writ petition on 11-05-1967.

Whether a second application under Section 6-H(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming the same relief, was maintainable when an earlier identical application had been dismissed for default of appearance, and whether the workmen were required to invoke Rule 16(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957.

The appellant (employer) argued that the fresh applications were not maintainable because the earlier applications had been dismissed, and the workmen ought to have applied under Rule 16(2) to set aside that dismissal, rather than filing fresh proceedings. The respondents (workmen) contended that Rule 16(2) had no application to a dismissal for default, as such an order is not passed under Rule 16(1), and therefore they were entitled to file fresh applications.

Under Rule 16(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, when a party is absent, the Labour Court or Tribunal must proceed with the case and pass such order as it deems fit and proper, which means an order on merits. Neither the Act nor the Rules empower a Labour Court to dismiss an application merely for default of appearance. A dismissal for default is not an order under Rule 16(1), and therefore Rule 16(2) (setting aside) has no application. A fresh application is maintainable despite an earlier dismissal for default.

Case called on for hearing. No one is present on behalf of the applicant, nor any request for adjournment has been received. The application is dismissed as not having been prosecuted. No order as to costs. An order dismissing a case for default or non-prosecution, does not come under sub-r. (1) of r. 16 and to such an order sub-r. (2) has no application. Neither the Act nor the rules empower a Tribunal or Labour Court to dismiss an application for default of appearance of a party. The provision, which clearly enjoins the Labour Court or Tribunal in the circumstances mentioned therein 'to proceed with the case in his absence', either on the date fixed or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, coupled with the further direction 'and pass such order as it may deem fit and proper', indicates that the Tribunal or Labour Court should take up the case and decide it on merits and not dismiss it for default. The necessity for filing an application for setting aside an order passed in the case in the absence of a party, as contemplated under sub-r. (2) of r. 16 will arise only when an order on merits affecting the case has been passed in the absence of a party, under sub-r. (1) of r. 16.

Array

• Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 6-H(2)
• Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957: Rule 16