Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—By an award dated 22.4.2010 the Labour Court, Jodhpur, while answering a reference made to it by the appropriate government, declared retrenchment of the respondent workman illegal being in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'). A direction was given to the employer to reinstate the workman in service with all continuity and with 40% of the back wages from the date of retrenchment to the date of award. By notification dated 9.11.2010 the award was published as per provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act of 1947.

2. An application as per provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the Labour Court by the employer on 6.12.2010 to set aside the award being exparte. The application aforesaid came to be rejected by the order dated 17.9.2013, hence a petition for writ was preferred before this Court. The writ petition also came to be rejected on 18.12.2013 by holding as under:-

“After going through the material placed on record and perusing the application preferred by the petitioner-Board for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and the impugned judgment and award, this Court is also of the opinion that the petitioner-Board has failed to make out a case for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and award. Therefore, the labour court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment and award dated 17.9.2013.”

3. This appeal is preferred to challenge the order dated 17.9.2013 with assertion that “the appellant-employer has given sufficient cause for its non-appearance before the learned Labour Court and entire mistake was committed by the employer's counsel. It is settled proposition of law that the litigant should not be suffered for the fault on the part of the advocate, but, the learned Courts below has considered this aspect of law and committed a serious error of law, while rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.” Suffice to mention here that an application for the same purpose could have been filed by the appellant as per Rule 22-A of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. Be that as it may, the argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner-appellant is that the Labour Court dismissed the application without adequately examining the sufficient cause for non-appearance on the part of the employer and the writ Court also failed to appreciate the same. It is asserted that the error occurred as the counsel for the employer failed to convey dates of the case and also did not appear before the court resulting into non-representation at the time of adjudication of the industrial dispute.

4. Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the award impugned as well as the judgment passed by learned Single Bench.

5. Learned Single Bench, while examining the award impugned, arrived at the conclusion that the Labour Court considered all aspects of the matter and rightly reached at the conclusion that the employer despite several opportunities did not make efforts for its representation. From perusal of the award impugned it is apparent that the employer was represented by its representative upto 8.12.2006 but subsequent thereto failed to join the reference proceedings. The relevant portion of the award reads as under:-

^^9- ;fn xq.kkoxq.k ij ekeys dks ns[ksa rks ge bl ckr ij fopkj djsaxs fd D;k vizkFkhZ uxjikfydk e.My dh vuqifLFkfr ds dkj.k mä bdrjQk vokMZ dks vikLr fd;k tkukmfpr gS vFkok ughaaA bl laca/k esa Je fookn la[;k 104@2002 lq'khy ukjk;.k cuke uxjikfydk dh vknsf'kdkvksa dks ns[ksa rks ;g lkeus vkrk gS fd mä izdj.k fnukad 06-11-2002 dks ntZ jftLVj fd;k tkdj i{kdkjksa dks uksfVl tkjh fd;s x;s ftl ij fnukad

17-12-2002 dks izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls Jh /kuirey fla?koh us odkyrukek is'k fd;k rFkk vizkFkhZ uxjikfydk e.My dh vksj ls Jh xksfoUn lksuh vf/koDrk us odkyrukek is'k fd;k o ek¡x-i= gsrq i=koyh 27-02-2003 dks dSEi dks

Click Here to Read the rest of this document