Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5798 of 1994 Petitioner :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Presiding Officer & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- N.B.Tiwari,C S C Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Haridwar Singh,P.K.S.Paliwal
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for petitioner and Sri Ashish Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Haridwar Singh, learned counsel for respondent-workman.
2. State of U.P. through District Horticulture Officer, Azamgarh has come up in this writ petition challenging award dated 13.04.1990 passed by Labour Court, Gorakhpur in Adjudication Case No. 195 of 1988 and order dated 12.08.1993 passed in Misc. Case No. 57 of 1992 rejecting petitioner's application for recall of ex parte award dated 13.04.1990.
3. It is contended by learned Standing Counsel that Labour Court had fixed 13.12.1989 and information of said date was given to petitioner by registered post letter dated 03.11.1989. Petitioner received that registered letter. On 13.12.1989 Presiding Officer was on leave and hence next date fixed was never communicated to petitioner. Matter was taken by Labour Court again on 10.01.1990 when on the ground of lack of knowledge, petitioner's representative could not appear before Labour Court. Matter was adjourned to 13.02.1990 for ex parte hearing. On this date also, Presiding Officer was on leave and thereafter next date fixed was 06.03.1990 but this time also no information was given to petitioner. Labour Court rejected application of petitioner seeking recall of ex parte award on the ground that even if Presiding Officer was absent, petitioner ought to have approached the Court to find out the next date fixed.
4. If on the date fixed by Labour Court Presiding Officer himself was absent on the ground of leave, there could not have been any order passed by Labour Court on that date and hence when next date was fixed, in my view, it was incumbent upon Labour Court to communicate next date fixed by it through notice to petitioner in prescribed manner, which has not been done in the case in hand.
5. Dispute relates to alleged termination of respondent- workman who claimed that he has wrongly been terminated on 24.10.1986. After filing of written statement, petitioner could appear before Labour Court. In the circumstances, as discussed above, in my view, matter ought to have been decided by Labour Court on merits and ex parte award ought to have been recalled.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-workman, when questioned, could not dispute that on two dates Presiding Officer was absent but after fixing new date, no information was given to petitioner about the next date fixed.
7. Therefore, in my view, ex parte order passed against petitioner cannot be sustained.
8. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 13.04.1990 and 12.08.1993 are hereby set aside. Matter is remanded to Labour Court to decide Adjudication Case No. 195 of 1988 on merits from the stage of filing of written statement by employer. Since it is an old matter, Labour Court shall proceed to decide matter expeditiously, and in any case, within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 AK