The Labour Court had jurisdiction over the dispute as the cause of action arose within its area, and the respondent's participation indicated acceptance of that jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

(Pranav Trivedi, J.)

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act assailing the correctness and validity of the judgment dated 31.08.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No.11465 of 2004.

2. The prayers as prayed for by the respondent – original petitioner in the writ petition was to give direction declaring the award dated 11.03.2004 in Reference case (LCA) No.1405 of 1994 as well as order dated 21.07.2004 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1405 of 2004 as null and void and not effective in the facts of the case.

3. Learned Single Judge after hearing the arguments from advocates of both the parties was pleased to allow the writ petition and quashed the award as well as order passed in the Miscellaneous Civil Application by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad.

4. The factual matrix which has led to filing of the writ petition was that the appellant – original respondent was appointed as a Sales Assistant with monthly pay of Rs.900 with the respondent society. It was the case of the appellant that she was regularly working with the respondent, however, on 07.01.1994, the appellant was orally terminated without following provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’). Pursuant to such termination, grievance was raised by the appellant which was referred to the learned Additional Labour Court Commissioner, Ahmedabad and which eventually culminated into filing of Reference (LCA) Case No.1405 of 1994. During the course of proceedings before the learned Labour Court, statement of claim was filed by the appellant as well as written statement was filed by the respondent. Thereafter the appellant led its oral evidence which was cross-examined by the respondent. However, respondent failed to led its oral or documentary evidence and their rights were subsequently closed and they did not appear even at the stage of primary hearing. Therefore, the award was passed on 11.03.2004 for reinstating the appellant with 50% back- wages as well as continuity of service.

5. Pursuant to the award passed by the learned Labour Court on 11.03.2004, Miscellaneous Civil Application was preferred by the respondent under Rule 26-A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 (‘the Rules’, for short). It was the case of the respondent that since an award was ex parte the same needs to be quashed and the matter should have byparte hearing. After hearing both the parties, learned Labour Court was pleased to reject the Miscellaneous Civil Application. Therefore, the award passed by the learned Labour Court as well as the order passed in the Miscellaneous Civil Application both of them came to be challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge after hearing arguments from both the sides primarily held that learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to hear the Reference as the respondent was co-operative society under the the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (‘the Madhya Pradesh Societies Act’, for short). On the basis of such observations, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow writ petition. Such order passed in writ petition being Special Civil Application No.11465 of 2004 is assailed in the present appeal.

6. We have heard learned senior advocate Mr.Gautam Joshi with learned advocate Mr.Ishan Joshi for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.S.P.Mishra with learned advocate Mr.Anand L. Sharma for the respondent.

7. It was submitted by learned senior advocate Mr.Gautam Joshi that the learned Single Judge could not have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of jurisdiction. It was submitted that respondent had submitted to the jurisdiction of the labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act by participating in the proceedings by filing written statement in the Reference case. Further, an application was also moved under Rule 26-A of the Rules for setting aside the alleged ex parte orders on merits. In the application as we