Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two writ petitions filed by the employer, the Deputy Engineer of Zilla Parishad Constructions, challenging an exparte award passed by the Labour Court, Chandrapur, and the subsequent rejection of the employer's application to set aside that exparte award. The background involves two workmen, Bapurao Nathuji Barde and Suryabhan Baghu Khadsang, who claimed to have joined service as unskilled labourers on 01.07.1988 and 01.02.1989 respectively. They alleged that their services were terminated on 11.09.1992 without any reason and without following the procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that juniors were retained. After conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the Labour Court. The employer admitted the workmen's service but denied the termination, claiming that the workmen had abandoned service. The Labour Court proceeded exparte and passed an award in favor of the workmen. The employer filed an application to set aside the exparte award, which was rejected. The High Court considered whether the Labour Court was justified in passing the exparte award and refusing to set it aside. The Court noted that the employer had alleged non-service of notice and had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance. The Court held that the Labour Court ought to have considered the application on merits and that the principles of natural justice required giving the employer an opportunity to be heard. The Court allowed the petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the matters to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication after giving the employer an opportunity to file a written statement and lead evidence. The Court directed the Labour Court to decide the matters expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Exparte Award - Setting Aside - Sufficient Cause - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25F - The employer challenged an exparte award passed by the Labour Court on the ground that no notice of the proceedings was served upon him. The Court held that the Labour Court ought to have considered the employer's application for setting aside the exparte award on merits, as the employer had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after giving the employer an opportunity to be heard. (Paras 1-10) B) Industrial Law - Termination - Retrenchment - Compliance with Section 25F - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25F - The workmen claimed that their services were terminated without following the procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, including payment of retrenchment compensation. The employer denied the termination and claimed that the workmen had abandoned service. The Court did not decide this issue on merits but remanded the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court was justified in passing an exparte award and refusing to set it aside despite the employer's claim of non-service of notice.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders of the Labour Court, and remanded the matters to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication after giving the employer an opportunity to file a written statement and lead evidence. The Labour Court was directed to decide the matters expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Exparte Award
- Setting Aside Exparte Decree
- Sufficient Cause
- Industrial Disputes Act
- Section 25F
