WP/25604/2005 of Pochampally Handloom Weavers, Vs The Labour Court - III, Rep by its Presiding Officer, on 23 December 2005

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 26-11-2005, passed by theLabour Court-III, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.96 of 2005 in M.P.No.11 of 1999.

The second respondent filed M.P.No.11 of 1999 under Section 33-C (2) of theIndustrial Dispute Act, against the petitioner claiming certain benefits. The LabourCourt passed an ex-parte order on 19-04-2000. The petitioner filed an application toset aside the ex-parte order. Though it has been filed in the year 2000, it came to benumbered as I.A.No.96 of 2005. Ultimately, the Labour Court passed an order on 26-10-2005 setting aside the ex-parte order dated 19-04-2000 subject to the conditionthat the petitioner shall pay a sum of R.500/- towards costs and file the counter-affidavit in the main case. The amount of Rs.500/- was paid within time. Thepetitioner states that the junior counsel on the record was under impression that thecounter affidavit, which was there in that file, was already presented to the LabourCourt and thereby did not take further steps. On finding that the direction as to thefiling of the counter-affidavit is not complied with, the Labour Court passed an orderdated 10-11-2005 dismissing I.A.No.96 of 2005.

On the next day itself, the petitioner filed an application being S.R.No.2988 of 2005enclosing the copy of the counter and pleading that the failure to file it, one dayearlier, was on account of inadvertence. The Labour Court rejected the applicationby holding that it has become funtus officio. The petitioner challenges the orderpassed by the Labour Court.

The second respondent filed counter affidavit narrating the facts that led topassing of the order in the main case on 19-04-2000, the subsequent orders on 26-10-2005 and 10-11-2005 and the impugned order. It is pleaded that the writpetitioner has been dragging proceedings on one pretext or the other and that thesecond respondent is put to irreparable loss.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader forLabour and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

The application filed by the writ petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order inM.P.No.11 of 1999 was allowed on 26-10-2005 by imposing two conditions. Thepetitioner complied with the first condition, viz., payment of R.500/- to the secondrespondent. The second condition was about filing of counter affidavit. On theassumption that the counter-affidavit was filed along with I.A.No.96 of 2005 itself, thepetitioner did not take further steps. The Labour Court, however, passed an orderdated 10-11-2005 observing that this condition was not complied with andaccordingly dismissed I.A.No.96 of 2005. On the next day itself, the presentapplication was filed narrating the circumstances under which the copy of thecounter affidavit could not be filed. In fact, the counter affidavit was enclosed with thepetition itself. The only ground, on which the Labour Court dismissed the I.A., is thatit has become functus officio. The same does not appear to be correct.

It is only when an award is passed in I.D., the Labour Court becomes functusofficio, after expiry of 30 years from the date of publication thereof. Inother matters, itcontinues to hold the jurisdiction. In fact, the Labour Court passed an order inI.A.No.96 of 2005 on 26-10-2005 setting aside the order dated 19-04-2000. Thisitself shows that the Labour Court did not treat itself as a functus officio, after lapse offive years, from the date of disposal of the M.P. Hence, the view taken by the LabourCourt cannot be sustained. The order under challenge is accordingly set aside.Consequently, the order dated 10-11-2005 is set aside.

Conclusion

To avoid further delay in the matter, it is directed that the counter affidavit filedby the petitioner, along with the instant applicant, be taken on record. As a result, theorder passed in I.A.No.96 of 2005, dated 26-10-2005, shall be treated as havingbeen complied with. The Labour Court shall proceed to decide M.P.No.11 of 1999,and dispose of the same, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. In case, there is any default or non-cooperation on the part of thewrit petitioner, it shall be open to the Labour Court to pass appropriate orders,without waiting for the response of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

_______________

Note:

Issue C.C. in three days.

(B/o)

Prv