Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dileep Balkrishna Nevatia, challenged an order dated 05/04/2017 passed by the Member of the Industrial Court, Nagpur, which conditionally set aside an exparte judgment and order dated 28/11/2015. The exparte order had been passed on a complaint filed by the respondents under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), alleging unfair labour practices under Item Nos.2, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV. The Industrial Court had partly allowed the complaint on 12/03/2012, directing the petitioner to pay wages in lieu of notice under Section 25F(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and compensation under Section 25F(b) thereof. Subsequently, the respondents filed an application for computation of the amount, which was decided exparte on 28/11/2015. The petitioner sought to set aside that exparte order, claiming lack of notice. The Industrial Court allowed the application but imposed a condition of depositing 50% of the adjudicated amount. The High Court examined whether the condition was justified. It noted that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance and the delay was not inordinate. The court held that the Industrial Court had not provided any reasons for imposing the deposit condition, which was disproportionate. Relying on principles analogous to Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court modified the order, setting aside the condition and restoring the exparte order unconditionally. The writ petition was partly allowed, and the rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Section 50 of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Setting aside exparte order - Condition of deposit - The Industrial Court set aside an exparte judgment subject to deposit of 50% of the adjudicated amount. The High Court held that the condition was not justified as the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance and the delay was not inordinate. The condition was set aside and the exparte order was restored unconditionally. (Paras 2-9) B) Civil Procedure - Restoration of exparte decree - Order IX Rule 13 CPC - Applicability to Industrial Court - The principles of Order IX Rule 13 CPC are applicable while considering an application under Section 50 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The court must exercise discretion judiciously and impose conditions only if necessary to balance equities. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in imposing a condition of depositing 50% of the adjudicated amount while setting aside an exparte judgment and order under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the writ petition. The condition of depositing 50% of the adjudicated amount imposed by the Industrial Court was set aside. The exparte judgment and order dated 28/11/2015 were restored unconditionally. The rule was made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Section 50 of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Order IX Rule 13 CPC
- conditional setting aside of exparte decree
- deposit condition
- discretion of court
- reasonableness of condition
