SCA/6685/1995 of NIKULSINH B. ZALA Vs LALIT STAINLESS STEEL (INDIA) P. LTD. on 19 October 1995

1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Judgment ?

4. Whether this case involves substantial question of law as tothe interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?

Mr. H.K. Rathod, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. K.V. Gadhra, Advocate for the respondents.

Coram: B.C. Patel,J. & H.R. Shelat,J.

(19-10-1995)

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per: B.C. Patel, J.)

1. The petitioner, by filing this petition, has challengedthe award in Reference No. LCR 20/90 delivered by respondentNo.2, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot on 30th September,1994.

2. The dispute raised by the petitioner was ultimatelyreferred for adjudication by Assistant Labour Commissioner,Adipur on 27-11-1989 for a decision. The dispute was raised, asalleged by the petitioner, that his services were terminated incontravention of the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. It appears that evidence is recorded by the LabourCourt and the matter was adjourned for hearing the arguments. Asobserved in the award, on behalf of the employer writtensubmissions were made, however, on behalf of the workman nothingwas placed on record in writing in the form of writtensubmissions nor oral submissions were advanced. From the record,it transpires that on 13-6-1994 on behalf of the workman writtensubmissions were tendered and yet the Labour Court in the awardhas observed that no written submissions are made on behalf ofthe workman. It transpires from the application that BarAssociation passed resolution on 21-6-1994 deciding not toconduct the matters before respondent No.2. Thereafter, on29-6-1994, President of the Tribunal visited from Rajkot and itwas decided that no decision shall be rendered in pendingmatters. Some petitions were preferred in this Court againstrespondent No.2, as submitted by Mr. Rathod, being Special CivilApplications Nos.9792/94 and 11114/94, 11115/94, 11116/94 and11117/94; and after hearing the parties including respondentNo.2, this Court requested a retired Judge of this Court toaccept the assignment as Commissioner to hold an enquiry andsubmit his report with regard to the matters referred in thejudgment; the report was accordingly received; this Courtthereafter issued a writ of quo-warranto; the appointment ofrespondent No.2 as Presiding Officer of Labour Court was quashedand set aside; and it was held that he is not eligible forappointment as Presiding Officer of Labour Court on the groundthat he was not qualified under Section 9(2) of the BombayIndustrial Relations Act, 1946. The Court also directed theState Government to pass necessary orders forthwith and alsorestrained respondent No.2 from discharging any of the functions,rights or duties of the aforesaid post.

3. In the instant case, learned Advocate Mr. Rathod pointed out that the Labour Court has not acted fairly inspite of thefact that written submissions were placed on the record; withoutperusing the same the Labour Court held that the writtensubmissions are not made and passed an order; and thereforeserious prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Under thecircumstances, we quash the impugned award with a direction tothe Labour Court to dispose of the matter from the stage of thearguments.

4. Rule is made abssolute accordingly with no order as tocosts.

.......