Ramjas College vs Labour Court No. 4 And Ors.
1987 Latest Caselaw 161 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the validity of an exparte award dated 26th June, 1984 passed by the Labour Court, Delhi.

2. The petitioner is a constituent college of the University of Delhi. According to the petitioner, it had employed respondent No. 2, Ram Daya, as an ad hoc Mali. His services were terminated with effect from 5th June, 1982,

3. A dispute arose regarding this termination. The Delhi Administration then referred the following term of reference to the Labour Court, Delhi for its adjudication.

"Whether the termination of services of S/Shri Lotan Singh and Ram Dayal is illegal and/or unjustified and, if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?"

4. On receipt of the reference, the Labour Court directed notice to be issued to the parties for 20th July, 1983. The case of the petitioner is that Dr. Kartar Singh as the Principal of the College but he was suspended from service in March, 1982. The College did not have any regular Principal and the 'summons were received in June, 1983 by the Officiating Principal. He, however, ceased to hold office on 19th July, 1983 while the case was fixed before the Labour Court on 20th July, 1983. In its meeting held on 7th July, 1983, the Governing Body of the College decided that one Dr. S.S. Rana be appointed as an Officer on Special Duty to look after the office of the Principal of the College. Dr. Rana, it is contended, did not know about the pendency of the case with the result that no one appeared before the Labour Court on 20th July, 1983.

5. On 20th July, 1983, when no one represented the petitioner herein, the Labour Court noted that statement of claim had been filed and time was given to the petitioner herein for filing the written statement. Case was adjourned to 8th September, 1983 but again no one was present on that date. Notice was ordered to be issued again for 20th October, 1983 but the averment of the petitioner is that the same was in fact not issued. On 20th October, 1983, when again no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner herein, ex parte proceedings were taken against the petitioner and the case was adjourned for ex parte evidence of the respondent-workman. Thereafter respondent-workman examined himself as a witness and the impugned award was made on 26th June, 1984 whereby the order of termination was held to be illegal and it was directed that the respondent-workman should be reinstated in service with full back wages. The case of the petitioner is that it received a letter dated 25th November, 1984 from the Delhi Labour Union informing it about the aforesaid award dated 26th June, 1984. On the receipt of this letter, information was gathered by the petitioner and on 14th December, 1984 application was made before the Labour Court for setting aside the ex parte order and award. In the said application it was stated that the petitioner had come to know about the proceedings and the award only through the letter dated 25th November, 1984 of the Delhi Labour Union. Reply was filed to the said application and one of the contentions raised was that the application was filed late. On 23rd April, 1985 the impugned order was passed by the Labour Court. He came to the conclusion that the award was published in a Gazette bearing the date 1st November, 1984 and the application for setting aside the said award was made on 14th December, 1984. He further held that under Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the award had become enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication under that Section and as that time had already expired therefore the court had become functus officio. The application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte award was not disposed of on merits. It is this order which is now challenged before this court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent workman has vehemently contended that once the publication of the award has been effected and 30 days have elapsed, the Labour Court became functus officio and it had no jurisdiction to set-aside the ex parte award. Though this submission is not accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not necessary to deal with the same because in the present case the Gazette Notification containing the award was in fact published not on 1st November, 1984 b'-t was published sometimes in 1985. It is no doubt true that the Gazette bears the date of 1st November, 1984 but at the end of the Gazette, the following words are printed:

"Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press, Ring Road, New Delhi 110 064 and published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi 110 054, 1985"

It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid sentence occurring at the end of the said Gazette that the publication of the Gazette was sometimes in 1985. Admittedly, the application for setting aside the ex parte award was filed before that date. This being so, the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to deal with the said application.

7. The option which is now available is either to send back the case to the Labour Court for decision of the application for setting aside the ex parte award or to decide the said application in these proceedings. In my opinion, it would unnecessarily delay the proceedings if the Labour Court is asked to decide the application for setting-aside the ex parte award and this delay would be harmful to the workman concerned. The petitioner is not a commercial organization. It is an educational organization which is run by an educational trust. There would be ordinarily no motive on the part of the petitioner in delaying the proceedings before the Labour Court. The fact that the petitioner did not have a regular Principal at the time when the proceedings were going on before the Labour Court is not in dispute. The averments made in the said application do make a good ground for setting aside the ex parte award. The petitioner has been able to make out a case showing that its absence from taking part in the proceedings was not due to any lack of bona fides.

8. This being so, the ex parte award dated 26th June, 1984 of the Labour Court is set aside. The reference is remanded to the Labour Court for deciding the same afresh. The parties should appear before the Labour Court on 20th April, 1987 on which date the petitioner herein will file its written statement to the statement of claim of the respondent-workman. The petitioner will, however, pay the costs of these proceedings. Counsel's fee computed at Rs. 1,000/-. The Labour Court should dispose of the reference as expeditiously as possible.