By way of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari and/or a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12-12-2001 at Annexure "H";
Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 12-12-2001 and further stay the proceedings before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, pursuant to the impugned order dated 12-12-2001 at Annexure "H";
An ex-partead-interim relief in terms of prayer (B) above may kindly be granted; and Pass such other and further order or orders as may be thought fit in the interest of justice."
This Court (Coram: A.H. Mehta, J) (as he then was) passed the following order on 16.08.2002:
"Notice returnable on 17th September, 2002. Interim relief in terms of para 9(B) granted till then. Direct service is permitted."
It appears from the record that a mention was made for and on behalf of respondent No.1, however, none appeared and by order dated 09.10.2002 this Court (Coram: Ravi R. Tripathi, J) admitted the matter and ad-interim relief granted earlier was ordered to continue till final disposal of the matter.
It also appears from the record that earlier the matter was listed on 29.03.2012, however, as no one appears for respondent No.1, the matter was adjourned to 10.04.2012 and on that day the learned advocate for the petitioner made a statement that in fact the respondent-workmen, who are 92 in number, have already availed benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and hence, to verify the said fact, the matter was adjourned to 19.04.2012. Thereafter the matter is listed today. Even today, though served, none appears on behalf of respondent No.1.
Heard Mr.Keyur D. Gandhi, learned advocate, for Nanavati Associates for the petitioner and Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2.
Mr.Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that in fact, as stated in the petition in the proceedings before respondent No.2, the proceedings were kept on 11.12.2001. Attention was invited to the letter dated 11.12.2001 whereby respondent No.2 was requested by the petitioner-Company that the letter dated 10.12.2001 of keeping the matter on 11.12.2001 was received through fax in the evening and, therefore, the petitioner-Company asked for 15 days' time. It appears that a copy of the said letter was also given to the representative of the union and the proceedings were adjourned to 18.12.2001. It was further submitted that even though the proceedings were adjourned to 18.12.2001, respondent No.2 preponed the hearing of the matter on 12.12.2001, at the instance of the union without giving any intimation of preponing the hearing and heard the matter on 12.12.2001 ex-parte and passed the impugned order dated 12.12.2001 and referred the dispute to the labour court. It was therefore, submitted that the order impugned is passed without giving proper opportunity and preponing the hearing of the matter without any notice to the petitioner. It was submitted that only on this ground the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.
Ms.Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that respondent No.2 had given ample opportunities to the petitioner-Company and submitted that the petitioner-Company have themselves not availed the benefit of hearing before respondent No.2 authority and thus, the petitioner-Company is precluded from raising such a technical plea. Relying upon the impugned order dated 12.12.2001 (at Annexure-H), it was submitted that respondent No.2, after considering the material before it, has rightly referred the dispute to the labour court in its jurisdiction under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was further submitted that even on merits of the impugned order the petition deserves to be dismissed and hence, this is not a fit case where this Court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed and interim relief granted earlier deserves to be vacated in the interest of justice.
Considering the rival submissions, it appears from the averments made in the petition which are not controverted that in the application dated 11.12.2001 respondent No.2 granted time upto 18.12.2001 and thereafter the impugned order is passed on 12.12.2001. As recorded earlier, this Court had initially issued notice and granted interim relief way back on 16.08.2002 and thereafter the matter came to be admitted on 09.10.2002 and even after a period of almost a decade this contention has remained uncontroverted. The impugned order (at Annexure-H) referring the dispute to Labour Court, Ahmedabad is passed by respondent No.2, without hearing the petitioner. Having adjourned the matter on the application made by the petitioner on 11.12.2001, whereby the hearing was fixed on 18.12.2001, respondent No.2 preponed the matter without intimating the petitioner, passed the impugned order on 12.12.2001. Hence, only on this short ground of not giving opportunity to the petitioner, the petition deserves to be accepted.
It is however made clear that this Court has not dealt with the merits of the impugned order, that is to say, whether the dispute is required to be referred to the labour court or not. This Court therefore is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the impugned order dated 12.12.2001 (at Annexure-H) is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 i.e. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad with a direction to decide the same afresh strictly in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent-workmen. As the matter is very old, it is expected that respondent No.2 shall decide the said issue as expeditiously as possible, latest by 31.08.2012, without being influenced by this order.
The petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
[R.M.CHHAYA, J ] *** Bhavesh* Top