2000 Supreme(AP) 853

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD., HYDERABAD, REP.BY BRANCH MANAGER - Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-ADDL.Labour Court, Hyd - Respondent
Decided On : 11-14-00

Headnote:

Companies Act, 1956 - Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (for brevity the ID Act) – sec. 33-C (20) – Writ petition – Misconduct of labour - This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus restraining respondent No. 1, namely, Additional Industrial Tribunal- cum-Additional Labour Court, from giving effect to the order dated passed by it in of - On while admitting the petition, this Court in WPMP No - granted interim stay of operation of the order passed in IA No - Respondent No. 2 after receiving the notice in the writ petition, filed an application being WVMP No - praying to vacate the stay order passed by this Court on - When the miscellaneous applications came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 appearing as party-in-person requested that the matter be disposed of finally - Accordingly, the matter was heard on -This order shall dispose of the writ petition finally - One filed an affidavit on behalf of the petitioner, which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 was a Clerk- cum-Typist -He questioned the order of transfer and filed an application being MP No. on the file of respondent No. 1 under section of the Industrial Disputes act, claiming an amount towards wages from at the rate of per month with usual allowances - It is alleged that the matter went up to the Division Bench of this Court, which ultimately held that respondent no. 2 has not worked from the date of the transfer order, and therefore, he is not entitled to claim wages for the period he has not worked - Division Bench, also observed, it is stated, that the workman has to move the Conciliation Officer and get the dispute referred, and then only he can question the order of transfer - Respondent no. 2-workman filed a number of applications under Section of the ID act - Petitioner contended that on the principle of res judicata, the applications cannot be filed over and over again, and the tribunal-cum-Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such applications, and if at all the workman has to claim, he must question before the Tribunal/labour court in and not In spite of the petitioner raising objections as to the maintainability of the petition under Section respondent No. 2-workman filed an application to summon Managing Director of the petitioner- company - Petitioner contended that the Managing Director has nothing to do with the wages, and it is only the Branch manager, who deals with the matter - As another MP being MP No. 33 of 1994 was already decided on 12-7-1995, the present mp being MP No. 21 of 1995 is filed only to harass the Managing Director, Respondent no. 2 is not for settlement, but is bent upon bringing down the reputation of the persons in-charge of the Management - Without realizing this, the Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court issued summons calling upon managing Director of the petitioner- company to appear on to give evidence, and if he disobeys the summons, complications would arise -Therefore, the present writ petition is filed – Held, - Industrial Tribunal is conferred with powers of a civil Court in certain matters, and it is necessary to refer to the relevant provision Section 11 (3) of the ID act, which reads as follows: 11 (3): Every Board, Court, Labour court, Tribunal and National Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters namely - (a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, (b) compelling the production of documents and material objects; (c) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses; (d) in respect of such other matters as may be prescribed - A plain reading of the above shows that the Tribunal is vested with the same powers as a civil Court under the Code of civil Procedure, in respect of enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath or compelling the production of documents - In the absence of compliance with the summons issued by the Industrial Tribunal under Section 11 (3), the consequences that follow are the same as postulated by rule 10 (2) read with Rule 21 of Order XVI of CPC, which reads as under:"rule 10 (2) - Where the Court sees reason to believe that such evidence or production is material, and that such person has, without lawful excuse, failed to attend or to produce the documents in compliance with such summons or has intentionally avoided service, it may issue a proclamation requiring him to attend to give evidence or to produce the document at a time and place to be named therein; and a copy of such proclamation shall be affixed on the outer door or other conspicuous part of the house in which he ordinarily resides. Rule 21 - Where any party to a suit is required to give evidence or to produce a document, the provisions as to witnesses shall apply to him so far as they are applicable. " - IF a person, who is summoned to give evidence or to produce the document fails to attend without lawful excuse, such a person is liable for severe action, including attachment and proclamation - However, it is always open to any person or witness to show to the Court or Tribunal any lawful excuse for not appearing to give evidence or produce the documents – have shown lawful excuse , if any, to the additional Industrial Tribunal for not appearing - Even now, it is always open to to show lawful excuse in terms of Rule 10 (2) read with Rule 21 of order XVI CPC, and seek appropriate clarification or necessary orders - At the instance of the Branch Manager, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India - Learned counsel for the petitioner laid more stress on the history of the litigation, and no attempt was made to bring the non-appearance of under the exempted category under Rule 10 (2) of Order XVI CPC - Writ petition, it is rightly contended by the party-in-person, is only intended to protract the litigation - It has been held by the supreme Court repeatedly that the industrial adjudication brooks no delay, and any attempts by the management to cause delay in industrial adjudication amounts to misuse and abuse of the process of the Court - An attempt is made in this case only towards that end - This is one fit case to issue directions ex debito justitiae to the Additional Industrial Tribunal, to dispose of MP No. 21 of, within a period of six weeks from to-day, considering all the issues raised by the workman and the management - There are no merits in the writ petition - Same with costs quantified – Dismissed accordingly.