1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :
"(a) Quashing and setting aside the award dated 09.11.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (L.C.V.) No. 25 of 1989.
(b) Granting such other and further relief and passing such and further orders as may be necessary in the facts of the case.
(c) Awarding cost of this petition."
2. The petition was admitted by order dated 30.10.2002. It appears from the record that Mr. Kiran C.Raval, learned Advocate represented the respondent before this Court. It further appears from the record that when the matter was listed before the Hon'ble Court (Coram : Mr. Justice Bankim N. Mehta) for final hearing on 29.8.2011, the following order was passed:
"Learned advocate Mr. Kiran C. Raval is absent.
It is stated by learned advocate Mr. Clerk for the petitioners that learned advocate Mr. Kiran C. Raval has stopped practising and hence, Notice be issued to the respondent.
In view of above, Issue Notice to the respondent informing them about non appearance of their advocate Mr. Kiran C. Raval.
3. The record shows that the Notice issued is served upon the respondent. However, when the matter is called out for final hearing no one appears for the respondent.
4. The facts that can be carved out from the record of the petition can be summed up as under.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that the Management declared lock out by notice dated 5.10.1988. It is also the case of the petitioners that none of the petitioners had resorted to any strike or go slow and had not indulged in any disruptive activities. It appears from the record that the respondent Company withdrew the lock out by notice dated 26.11.1988. In pursuance to the said notice the petitioners reported to duty on 1.12.1988. However, the Management demanded that the petitioners - workmen should sign a good conduct bond which provides for various conditions as can be seen from the format, produced at Annexure 'E' to the petition.
6. It appears from the record that out of 38 workmen the present petitioners did not accede to such request and therefore they were not permitted to join the duties by the respondent Company. As the petitioners were not taken back in service they along with other workmen filed a Reference and raised industrial dispute before the Competent Authority and as the conciliation failed, the same was referred to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Vadodara which came to be registered as Reference (L.C.V.) No. 25 of 1989.
7. The petitioners in their statement of claim (Exhibit 3), have raised a dispute that the action of the respondent Company for insisting to sign the said bond is illegal and on their non-signing of such bond the petitioners have not been permitted to join the services and have been so terminated.
8. The Labour Court after considering the evidence on record was pleased to reject the Reference. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award dated 9.11.2001 the present petition is filed.
9. Heard Mr. A.K. Clerk, learned Advocate for the petitioners. As stated hereinabove, even though the notice has been served upon the respondent no one appears. Mr. Clerk submitted that in fact none of the petitioners were on strike. Mr. Clerk further submitted that it is an admitted position that by notice dated 5.10.1988, the respondent Company declared lock out which was withdrawn by notice dated 26.11.1988. Mr. Clerk relying upon the very version of the notice dated 26.11.1988 whereby the respondent company withdrew the lock out and further submitted that the petitioners were not on strike. On the contrary, it is provided in the said notice itself that in order to maintain peace and harmony of discipline in the organization and with an aim to increase the daily production it is necessary that the workmen may assure the management. Mr. Clerk further submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners have not been terminated. Mr. Clerk further relying upon the case of Swastik Textiles Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajensingh Santsingh And Ors., reported in 25(1) GLR 470 submitted that the respondent management cannot insist for signing the bond as is done by the respondent in the present case. Mr. Clerk further relying upon the ratio laid down by this Court further submitted that in fact the same amounts to change of service condition. Considering the submissions made by Mr. A.K. Clerk and on perusing the record of the petition it transpires that the petitioners were not on strike and in fact by notice dated 5.10.1988, the respondent had declared lock out which came to be withdrawn by notice dated 26.11.1988. The Labour Court while appreciating the oral deposition of the petitioners has on one hand come to the conclusion that it is proved that the petitioners were not taken back in service pursuant to the notice dated 26.11.1988 mainly because the bond was not signed and on the other hand has come to the conclusion that it is not termination.
10. This Court also finds that except this bond the Labour Court has not dealt with any other contention raised by either of the parties. Considering the above factual matrix, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court and remand the matter back to the Labour Court for its rehearing on its own merits after giving opportunity to all the parties concerned. The petition is accepted. The judgment and award dated 9.11.2001 passed in Reference (L.C.V.) No. 25 of 1989 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vadodara is quashed and set aside and the said Reference is restored to the file of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vadodara. Considering the fact that the Reference is very old the Labour Court is directed to decide the said Reference as expeditiously as possible. The petition is allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(R.M.
Chhaya, J.) M.M.BHATT Top