High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
U.P.S.E.B. Thorugh Ex. Eng. And Another v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra And Others - WRIT - C No. 28988 of 1997  RD-AH 8104 (30 April 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.28988 of 1997
U.P.Power Corportion Limited..........................................Petitioner
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Agra and others...............................................................,.Respondents.
Hon.Tarun Agarwala, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners have challenged the exparte award whereby the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service with full back wages.
From the perusal of the order-sheet and the award of the Labour Court, it transpires that the reference was received by the Labour Court on 8.11.1985 and the first date fixed was 22.1.1996 on which date, the employers, namely, the petitioners did not appear and the Labour Court proceeded exparte and reserved the award. It further transpires, that the employers moved an application on the same day, praying for the recall of the order, on the ground, that the authorized representative could not reach the Labour Court, on time, as his train got delayed. From the order-sheet, it transpires that the said application was dismissed on 19.2.1996 and the Labour Court maintained its earlier order dated 22.1.1996. Subsequently, the said award was published on 6.9.1996.
In my opinion, the approach adopted by the Labour Court was totally erroneous and against Rule 12 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957.
From the order sheet it does not transpire that the employers were not aware of the date fixed in the matter. There is nothing to indicate that 19.2.1996 was fixed for the disposal of the petitioner's application for recall. Further the Labour Court has proceeded in violation of Rule 12 of the 1957 Rules. If no written statement is filed, the Labour Court can proceed exparte under Rule 16 of the Rules and fix another date under Rule 12(3) for hearing of the case, on which date the Labour Court could proceed under Rule 12(9) of the Rules. This has not been done. The Labour Court on the very first date has proceeded exparte on 12.1.1996 and reserved the award. No date was fixed for the hearing of the matter. Consequently, in the opinion of the Court, the Labour Court has proceeded erroneously against the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules. The exparte award, being erroneous, is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Labour Court to decide the matter afresh within six months.
During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court by an order dated 22.9.1997 had directed the petitioners to reinstate the workmen. It is alleged that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court the workmen was reinstated.
In view of the aforesaid, the workmen would be allowed to continue in service during the pendency of the dispute before the Labour Court and he would be paid the current salary from today till the matter is decided by the Labour Court.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.