Delhi High Court
Shri Dev Uttam vs R.N. Mehrotra on 28 February, 1986
Equivalent citations: 1986 (52) FLR 386, (1993) IIILLJ 430 Del
Author: S Bhandare
Bench: S Bhandare
JUDGMENT
Sunanda Bhandare J.
1. The petitioner, a partner in a partnership firm which was running a printing press in the name and style of M/s Gautami Printers has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 28th Feb., 1973 in I.D.Case No. 89 of 1972. The petitioner has also challenged the order of the Labour Court dated 18th May 1973 whereby the Labour Court refused to review the award dated 28th Feb., 1973 on the ground that it had no power to set aside its own ex parte order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reference was regarding a dispute between the workmen and the partnership firm. After the reference was made but before the hearing, the partnership firm was dissolved. The Labour Court, however, while deciding the reference held the partners individually responsible for payment of back wages and compensation. This, according to the petitioner, was done by the Labour Court ex parte without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to place his case before the Labour Court.
3. Though no one appeared for the respondents at the time of the hearing of this petition today, a reply to the show-cause notice is on record. On perusal of the reply, it appears that though the respondents had disputed the case on merits, it is not disputed that the award was made ex parte hearing the petitioner.
4. The question whether the Labour Court can set aside its own ex parte order has been finally settled by this Court in Metal Fabricators (India) v. B.D. Gupta and Ors. 1975 Lab IC 1707 (D.B.) Delhi. But that question is not relevant for disposing of the present petition at this stage now because the main award dated 28th Feb. 1973 is also challenged in this petition. Rules of natural justice require that a hearing should be given to a person against whom an order is made. Admittedly, the reference was between the firm and the workmen. If the liability of the individual partners had to be decided it was imperative to give notice to the partners. The Labour Court was not right in deciding on the liability of the petitioner without giving him a hearing. I, therefore, think that the proper course would be to direct the Labour Court to decide this question afresh after giving the proper opportunity to the petitioner in this regard.
5. In the result the petition is allowed. The award dated 28th Feb. 1973 and order dated 18th May 1973 of the Labour Court, Delhi arc set aside. The Labour Court is directed to hear the petitioner on the question of his liability towards payment of back wages and compensation to the workmen afresh. There will be no order as to costs.
