Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= VIRAMGAM TEXTILE MILLS - Petitioner(s) Versus TEXTILE LABOUR UNION - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR D.G.SHUKLA WITH MR VISHAL C MEHTA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR DS VASAVADA for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Date : 10/04/2012 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT
1. By way of both these Writ Petitions, the petitioner Mill Company has challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 23.12.1998 in Reference (IC) No. 121 of 1990 as well as the order passed in Review Application (IC) No. 4 of 1999 dated 10.12.1999 as also the order passed in Reference (IC) No. 114 of 1990 and order passed in Review Application (IC) No.3 of 1999, whereby the Industrial Court was pleased to accept the notice of change filed by respondent union under the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Mr.
2. Mr.
D.G.Shukla, learned Counsel with Mr. Vishal Mehta for the petitioner in both the petitions, under the instructions of Mr. Anil C. Raval, Labour Officer of the petitioner and Mr. D.S. Vasavada for the respondent Union state that both the parties have not adduced any evidence before the Industrial Court.
3. Considering the awards impugned in both the petitions it is found that no evidence is adduced by either party. Upon consensus arrived at between the petitioner as well as respondent, the interest of justice would be served if the impugned awards are quashed and set aside and the matters are remitted back to the Industrial Court for their fresh adjudication on merits, the following directions are issued :
[i] The award dated 23.12.1998 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (IC) No. 121 of 1990 as well as in Review Application (IC) No. 4 of 1999 and the order dated 10.12.1999 are hereby quashed and set aside.
[ii] The award dated 23.12.1998 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (IC) No. 114 of 1990 as well as order passed in Review Application (IC) No. 3 of 1999 are hereby quashed and set aside.
[iii] Both the original References being Reference (IC) No. 121 of 1990 and Reference (IC) No. 114 of 1990 are remanded back for fresh hearing on their own merits and the same are restored to file of Industrial Court, Ahmedabad.
[iv] The petitioner as well as respondent in both the petitions are at liberty to adduce oral as well as documentary evidence pertaining to the issues involved in the matters within the time schedule fixed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad.
[v] As the matters are very old the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad is requested to give utmost priority to the hearing of the said References as expeditiously as possible after affording an opportunity of adducing oral as well as documentary evidences to both the parties. Mr. Shukla appearing for Mr. Mehta in both the matters as well as Mr. D.S.Vasavada, learned Counsel for the Union assures this Court that both the parties shall produce oral as well as documentary evidence as per time limit fixed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad.
4. In view of the above directions both the petitions are allowed and the judgments and awards passed in impugned References being Reference (IC) No. 121 of 1990 and Reference (IC) No. 114 of 1990 are quashed and set aside and are remanded back for fresh hearing on their own merits as per above directions.
5. It is however, made clear that this Court has not expressed its view on merits of the matter and taking into consideration the consensus arrived at between the parties the above directions are issued. It is open for the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad to decide the aforesaid References on their own merits without being influenced by the order of this Court.
6. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Parties to bear their own costs.
Sd/-
(R.M.
Chhaya, J.) M.M.BHATT Top