Back
1987 Supreme(Cal) 342
High Court Of Calcutta
A. K. Sen
GANESH CHANDRA SARKAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. 10021 Of 1982 (W)
Decided On : 10/27/1987
A no dispute award is not an award within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it does not constitute an interim or final determination of the industrial dispute referred to the Labour Court.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - AWARD - NO DISPUTE AWARD - SETTING ASIDE - LIMITATION - JURISDICTION - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES RULES, 1958, RULE 27 (III).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a driver, was terminated from service. He filed a representation with the Labour Commissioner requesting intervention in the matter. The Labour Commissioner referred the dispute to the First Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court issued summons to the petitioner, who filed a statement of case. The employer filed a written statement and raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The Labour Court submitted its purported award to the Government of West Bengal, holding that the parties were no longer interested in proceeding with the case and that the industrial dispute had ceased to exist. The petitioner filed an application under Rule 27 (iii) of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, requesting the Labour Court to set aside the award. The Labour Court rejected the petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned award dated 19th May, 1981 was not an award within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to reject the reference and dispose of the matter holding that the dispute ceased to exist. The Labour Court should have proceeded ex parte on the basis of the materials and evidence on record.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned award dated 19th May, 1981 is an award within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to reject the reference and dispose of the matter holding that the dispute ceased to exist? 3. Whether the Labour Court should have proceeded ex parte on the basis of the materials and evidence on record?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A no dispute award is not an award within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it does not constitute an interim or final determination of the industrial dispute referred to the Labour Court. 2. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to reject a reference and dispose of the matter holding that the dispute ceased to exist. The Labour Court must dispose of the matter on the basis of the materials and evidence on record. 3. The Labour Court should have proceeded ex parte on the basis of the materials and evidence on record, as the parties failed to appear at the hearing.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the award dated 19th May, 1981 and the order dated 25th May, 1982, and directed the First Labour Court to dispose of the case on merits within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.
( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the award dated 19th May, 1981 and the order dated 25th May, 1982 passed by the First Labour Court. The facts of this case are stated hereinafter.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Driver in the Centre of Studies in Social Science, Calcutta in the time scale of Rs. 260-6-290-EB-6-326-8-EB-8-390-10-400/- by an Office Order dated 27th August, 1973. The petitioner was confirmed to the said post of Driver on 28th August, 1975. For the alleged failure to attend to duty on October 29, 1976, the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from February 10, 1977.
( 3 ) THE petitioner wrote a letter to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, on 19th June, 1978 requesting him to intervene in the matter and to take appropriate steps for redressal of his grievances in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). On 26th September, 1978 the petitioner wrote a letter to the Labour Commissioner, respondent No. 2 herein requesting him to intervene and to take effective action in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply v. Rajappa, (I): 1978 (1) LLJ 349. The Registrar of the said Centre wrote a letter to the Labour Commissioner, contending that as the said Centre being an organisation where no production and/or distribution is carried on, it could not be legally deemed to be an industry and as such, there was no scope in law for the intervention of the Labour Commissioner in respect of the dispute sought to be raised by the petitioner.
( 4 ) ON receipt of the representation of the petitioner, the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, by his Order No. 4711-IR-IIL-439/79 dated 24-10-79 communicated the order of the Governor to refer the said dispute to the First Labour Court for adjudication. In the said Order of reference the First Labour Court was directed to examine the issue whether the termination of service of the petitioner was justified. If so, to what relief the petitioner was entitled to.
( 5 ) THE First Labour Court, (hereinafter referred to as the said Labour Court) issued summons on 26-11-79 to the petitioner to appear before the said Labour Court on 18-12-1979 either personally or through an authorised representative for filing statement of case. It was mentioned in the said summons that in default of appearance of the petitioner at the hearing the matter would be liable to be heard and determined in his absence.
( 6 ) THE petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court annexing therewith some relevant documents and papers requesting the Labour Court to rely on those documents and papers for effective determination of his case.
( 7 ) THE said Centre filed a written statement on 5. 2. 1980 inter alia, stating that Labour Court should not entertain the claim of the petitioner to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner.
( 8 ) THE said Registrar of the Centre being respondent No. 7 herein, filed a petition before the Labour Court on 6. 5. 1980 setting out the aims and objects of the said Centre and also raised a preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction and competence of the Government of West Bengal to make the Order of Reference dated 24. 10. 1979. The Labour Court was directed not to entertain the reference.
( 9 ) THE Labour Court submitted its purported award to the Government of West Bengal on 10. 5. 1981. The Labour Court held that the parties are no longer interested to proceed with the case and the industrial dispute between them ceased to exist. As such, the Labour Court passed an award on the footing that the industrial dispute under reference was no longer in existence. The instant reference was thus disposed of by a "no dispute award". By an order No. 1660-I. R. /ir/iil/433/79 dated 12th June, 1981 the Assistant Secretary to the Government o
