Heard Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Rai for the respondent no. 4.
Upon the raising of an industrial dispute by the Respondent no. 4, the matter was referred to the Labour Court as an adjudication case No. 158 of 2006 and the award of it was rendered on 31.8.2010. When recovery as per the recovery certificate was being made, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.
The petitioner, in brief, submitted that the service of the respondent no. 4 who worked with effect from 20.6.1982 in the petitioner's establishment was terminated on 19.4.1985. The respondent no. 4 waited for almost 21 years and, thereafter, raised an industrial disputes which was referred as an adjudication case no. 158 of 2006. This the petitioner submitted was against the principles laid down in 2000 (2) SCC 455 : Nedungadi Bank Ltd. vs. K.P. Madhawankutty and Others. He further submitted that upon notice being received by the petitioner it had filed a written statement in the case and since in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit the fact regarding filing of the written statement was not denied, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the written statement, while the case was being decided by the Labour Court, should have been taken into consideration even if the employer petitioner was not represented at the time of hearing. In this regard, the petitioner relied upon 2006 (108) FLR 426 : M/s. Devyani Beverages Ltd. vs. Labour Court-II, Ghaziabad and Others. The relevant paragraphs, on which the petitioner relied, were paragraphs 8, 10 and 11 and, therefore, the same are being reproduced here under:-
8. As regards the merits of the claim of the workman, a perusal of the award shows that without even discussing any evidence, and without actually recording any finding that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a year or that he was ever paid any wages or salary, the Labour Court arrived at a conclusion that the passing of the oral termination order dated 10.12.1997 passed by the employer was not justified, and after quashing the same, allowed the entire claim of the workman. As already stated above, in the award itself it has been recorded that the written statement of the employer had been filed. The Labour Court, thus, before passing the award on merits, ought to have also considered the case of the employer as set out in their written statement, even if the employer, for any reason, could not participate in the proceedings subsequently. In the absence of the same, the exparte award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be set aside on this count also.
10. Accordingly, even though Rule 12 (9) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 provides that if the affidavit accompanying the written statement of the workman is not rebutted by the employer, the Labour Court shall presume the contents of the affidavit to be true and make an award accepting the facts stated in the written statement, but, it cannot thus be construed to mean that the entire averments made in the affidavit, without any documentary or oral evidence, have to be accepted in toto without the Labour Court examining the same judiciously. The labour laws of this country may be welfare legislation which may not require a strict procedure to be followed as held by the Supreme Court in the case of the Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi Vs. The Employee of the Bharat Bank Ltd. Delhi and the Bharat Bank Employees' Union, Delhi AIR 1950 S.C. 188 (which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents) but the same would not mean that the procedure of accepting and relying of evidence before the Court is not to be followed.
11. In the present case, the award has been passed merely on the basis of the written statement of the employee. The entire award is bereft of any discussion on the merits of the case. A perusal of the award shows that only the case of the workman has been set out and without analytically examining the material on record and recording reasons for its conclusion, the claim of the employer has been allowed simply on account of the provisions of Rule 12 (9) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957. The said award being totally unsupported by reasons or discussions, cannot be said to be an award on merits of the case. Failure to give reasons would amount to denial of justice. The award speaks of the filing of the written statement by the employer but has not dealt on the comparative merit of the claims and counter claims. Jumping to the conclusion that the termination of the workman was illegal after merely setting out the factual aspect of the case, and without discussing the merits, would render the award illegal and unsustainable in law. There is no analytical examination of the merits of the claim which shows total non-application of mind.
The petitioner's counsel also submitted that the petitioner's factory had closed down on 18.12.2000 and this fact was also brought to the knowledge of the Labour Court by means of an amendment application which the petitioner had filed on 18.9.2007 and, therefore, he submits that even if the petitioner or his counsel were not present then the award should have taken into account the facts as were mentioned in the written statement.
Learned counsel for the workmen supported the award and submitted that he had no knowledge of the disciplinary enquiry about which the petitioner had made a mention in the written statement and also here in the writ petition and, therefore, when there was no notice then there was a violation of the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, and, therefore, the Labour Court had rightly on 31.8.2010 passed the award and had set aside the termination of the petitioner and had reinstated the petitioner with continuity in service.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also after having gone through the written arguments, I am of the view that when the written statement was there on the record of the case, the Labour Court should have looked into the written statement. Had the written statement been seen then the Labour Court would have taken into account the various aspects of the petitioner's case. A perusal of the Labour Court award definitely shows that the question of delay in raising the dispute and the fact that there was a disciplinary enquiry undergone were not taken into account.
Thus for the reason that the petitioner's written statement was neither looked into nor referred to, I am of the view that the award needs to be set aside and the matter should be re-adjudicated. Under such circumstances, the award dated 31.8.2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Labour Court which shall make an endeavour to decide the case within the next four months after putting the parties to notice.
The writ petition is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 28.9.2018 praveen.
(Siddhartha Varma,J.)