1. This special civil application is filed challenging the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kachchh at Bhuj, rendered in Reference(IT) No. 823 of 1996.
2. The respondent-workman was serving as a Clerk with the petitioner-Corporation. In the year 1993, the respondent-workman tendered his resignation along with notice pay and the same was accepted by the petitioner-Corporation.
3. After the resignation was accepted by the petitioner-Corporation, the respondent-workman filed a civil suit before the trial Court. Being unsuccessful in the civil Suit, he preferred an appeal before the District Judge and the Suit was remanded again to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the same, with a period of three months. In the said proceedings, the trial Court disposed of the matter with a direction to the respondent-workman to approach the Labour Court. Accordingly, the respondent- workman approached the labour Court and the matter was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kachchh at Bhuj. The respondent- workman examined himself before the Labour Court. However, he was not cross-examined by the petitioner and accordingly, an award in favour of the respondent-workman was passed. Aggrieved from this award of the Labour Court, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.
4. While arguing the matter, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Raval, submitted that the respondent-workman has joined bar and is practicing as an advocate since 1999 and on account of that the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation, who was to cross-examine before Labour Court, deliberately abstained from appearing. As a result of this, the defence of the petitioner could not be brought on record and an unfavorable award has been passed. It is further submitted that in absence of any defence of the petitioner to defend their case, the case is required to be remanded back to the Labour Court to decide the same afresh, after considering the evidence of the petitioner- Corporation.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Gateshaniya, learned Counsel representing the respondent- workman, has submitted that the petitioner- Corporation was given sufficient opportunity to defend its case. Examination-in-chief of the respondent-workman was recorded and he offered himself for cross-examination, but, the same was not done. Hence, there being no cogent and convincing reasons for remanding the case, the petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the division bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.81 of 2008, dated 29.04.2011.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents on record with the help of the learned Counsel for the parties.
7. Facts are not disputed in this case. The only argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-corporation is that their Counsel before the Labour Court could not cross-examine the respondent-workman, since, the respondent- workman has subsequently became an advocate and has started practice, on account of that nobody was willing to cross-examine the witness.
8. It is an admitted position that the petitioner-Corporation was given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witness i.e. the respondent-workman. No doubt, a case can be remanded when there are cogent and convincing reasons pointed out by the learned Counsel for the parties. However, present is the case in which sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner-Corporation, and therefore, if the case is remanded, as prayed for by the petitioner, then no case will come to an end.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court and resultantly, this petition is DISMISSED, by upholding the order under challenge.
10. Since, the order under challenge was passed in the year 2005 and the same is not implemented till date, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent-workman, it is directed that the same be executed within a period of ONE MONTH from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. Rule is discharged.
(MOHINDER PAL, J.)
Umesh/