Dee Bee Publication Private ... vs The Presiding Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 4273 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
                            W.P.(L) No. 1622 of 2020
         Dee Bee Publication Private Limited               ... .. ...           Petitioner
                                 Versus
        The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad & Ors.          .. ... ... Respondents
                                   ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO .........

       For the Petitioner        : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate
       For the Respondents       : Mr. Ansuman Kumar, Advocate
                                   ......
07/ 18.11.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pratiush Lala has submitted that order dated 07.09.2019, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in Misc. Case No.56 of 2018 whereby the restoration application of the petitioner to restore E.S.I. Case No.01 of 2015, which has been dismissed for non-prosecution, has been dismissed because of the reason that plea taken by the applicant is not reliable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that under article 227 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition has been filed before this Court as the learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to dismiss the application pending before the Court even if the parties are not appearing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Rule 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rule, 1957, which reads as follows:-

"22. Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal, National Tribunal or Arbitrator may proceed ex parte- If without sufficient cause being shown, any party to proceedings before a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal, National Tribunal or Arbitrator fails to attend or to be represented, the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal, National Tribunal or Arbitrator may proceed, as if the party had duly attended or had been represented."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that this Principle has already been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 360 at para 13, which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

"13. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid case to the facts of the present case, as the two provisions are similar, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant for want of prosecution and it ought to have decided the appeal on merits even if the appellant or its counsel was not present when the appeal was taken up for hearing. The High Court also erred in law in upholding the order of the Tribunal."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Agra Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. Labour Court, Meerut and Another, reported in (1969) 1 SCC 243 at para 12, as

such, this Court may restore the original case by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Labour Court and the petitioner will co-operate in disposal of the case.

Learned counsel, Mr. Ansuman Kumar has submitted that there is some medical urgency in the family of the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, as such, matter may be listed after two weeks.

Let notice be issued to respondent no.5- Desh Bhushan Prakashan, Joraphatak Road, Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad, P.O. + P.S.- Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad under both process i.e. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed by Saturday i.e. 20.11.2021.

Put up this case after service of notice.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) R.S.