1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
"(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application.
(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 4.3.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Palanpur in Misc. Application No. 18/1999 and further be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for recalling the order passed in the review application and further be pleased to direct the Labour Court, Banaskantha to reconsider the application being Application No. 18/1999 preferred by the petitioner and be pleased to direct the Labour Court, Banaskantha to rehear and redecide the restoration/review application preferred by the respondent by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and appropriate direction may be issued in this regard.
(C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order passed below Exh.17 dated 9.1.1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Banaskantha in Reference (LCB) No. 159/1998 and further be pleased to grant stay of operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 31.8.1998 passed below Exh. 17 passed in Application No. 14/1996 (203/1994) by way of interim relief till the aforesaid petition is finally heard and decided by this Hon'ble Court.
ALTERNATIVELY This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant interim relief and be pleased to direct the Labour Court, Banaskantha to submit the entire original record of original Reference No. 1164/1985, Reference No. 159/1998, Misc. Application No. 18/1999 and Misc. Application No. 14/1996 (new No. 214/1999) by way of interim relief. The said record of the aforesaid proceedings be ordered to be produced before this Hon'ble High Court by way of interim relief and appropriate interim relief be passed in this regard.
(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other further order/s as are deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. The facts which can be culled out from the record of the petition are as under.
3. The petitioner was working as employee of the respondent. It appears that as the petitioner was terminated from service and hence a dispute was raised. As the conciliation failed, the said dispute came to be referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Palanpur, which came to be registered as Reference (LCP) No. 1164 of 1985. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Palanpur, by judgment and award dated 19.8.1994 was pleased to allow the said Reference and reinstate the petitioner with back wages and the petitioner was also awarded cost of Rs.500/-. The said award also came to be published in Official Gazette.
4. It further transpires that the aforesaid judgment and award was passed ex-parte. The respondent-employer filed application before the Labour Court to revoke the said award on the ground that it was passed without hearing the respondent. As a matter of fact, the petitioner engaged one Mr. R.G.Jogi to conduct the aforesaid Misc. Application filed by the respondent employer for recalling the award. It further transpires that in the said Review Application being Misc. Review Application No. 203 of 1995, constituted attorney of the petitioner Mr. R.G.Jogi, submitted a purshis dated 9.2.1996 and on the basis of the said purshis, which declared that the petitioner has settled the grievance out of Court, the Reference came to be withdrawn by order dated 9.1.1999 (Exh.17). Thereafter, it transpires that the petitioner filed Misc. Application which came to be registered as Misc. Application No. 18 of 1999 for setting aside the said settlement. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Palanpur by impugned order dated 4.3.2003 was pleased to reject the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
5. Heard Mr. N.K. Majmudar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Archana Acharya, learned Counsel for the respondent.
6. Mr.
Majmudar has mainly contended before this Court that the representative so appointed by the petitioner Mr. R.G.Jogi had only authority to oppose the application filed by the respondent-employer for recalling the award which was passed without hearing the respondent-employee. No further authority was granted. Mr. Majmudar therefore submitted that representative of the petitioner Mr. Jogi had no authority to file purshis and accept any amount towards full and final settlement of the claim raised by the petitioner. Mr. Majmudar therefore submitted that Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction and has committed error apparent on the face of the record and therefore submitted that the order impugned dated 4.3.2003 deserves to be quashed and set aside. He therefore submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed. No other contentions are raised by Mr. Majmudar.
7. Per contra Ms. Acharya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, replying upon the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the respondent submitted that in fact the petitioner has already resigned on 18.6.1984 and has also received an amount of Rs.1800/- towards gratuity and other benefits. Ms. Acharya further submitted that the allegation of collusion between respondent-employer and Mr. Jogi is without any basis. Ms. Acharya therefore submitted that the order impugned is legal, proper and the petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
8. Considering the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of the order impugned in the present petition and on perusing the documents produced by the respondent along with their Affidavit-in-Reply it reveals that the petitioner had given authority to Mr. R.G. Jogi who happened to be the General Secretary of the Union who represented before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Porbandar. It also further reveals that the petitioner had given resignation and had accepted Rs.1,800/- on 18.6.1985, receipt of which is produced on record of this petition, which bears signature of the petitioner. Ms. Acharya, learned Counsel has also referred to the photocopy of the said receipt. The Labour Court has threadbare discussed the extent of authority given to the representative by the petitioner and it has found that even the authority to withdraw and to compromise was given. Such finding of fact on appreciation of evidence is required to be interfered with by this Court. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court in the impugned award has considered the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same has been pleased to dismiss the said application for restoration. The Labour Court has not committed any error apparent on the face of the record which warrants interference of this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
9. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(R.M.
Chhaya, J.) M.M.BHATT Top