The necessity of a settlement between parties for passing an award and the legal provisions for setting aside an ex-parte order.

Heard both sides. The petitioner, who was a Conductor employed in the first respondent Corporation, has come forward to challenge the award passed by the second respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.246 of 2006, dated 09.12.2009 in dismissing the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, an agreement was allegedly reached on 2.3.2007 before the third respondent (Lok Adalat). Thereafter, no award can be passed and hence the ex-parte award was illegal. It is seen from the records that the petitioner, who was working as a Conductor was dismissed from service on 3.3.1999 on account of his unauthorised absence from 4.6.1997 to 22.6.1997. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai. In the conciliation proceedings, the management took the stand that the petitioner cannot be reinstated in view of the misconduct committed by him.

3. On the strength of the failure report, the petitioner filed a claim statement as per Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Chennai. The I Additional Labour Court (2nd respondent), to which the matter was assigned, took the dispute in I.D.No.246 of 2006 and issued notice to the first respondent Corporation. On behalf of the Corporation, one V.Udayakumar entered appearance on 19.7.2006. Thereafter when the matter came up on 5.1.2007, since no settlement was reached between both sides, the matter was adjourned to 19.2.2007. On 19.2.2007, there was no representation on the side of the petitioner. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 2.3.2007, it was adjourned for reporting settlement. Subsequently, since no counter statement filed, it was posted to 27.8.2007. The first respondent filed a counter statement on 27.9.2007 and the matter was posted for enquiry on 23.1.2008. Subsequently, the matter was called on several dates. On 09.12.2009, the petitioner was absent at 11.15 a.m. and even the counsel was not present. Since the matter was posted for enquiry and sufficient time was given, the dispute was dismissed by the 2nd respondent Labour Court by an order dated 09.12.2009.

4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner sent a letter, dated 14.6.2007 to the first respondent Corporation, stating that three months before, his I.D. was sent to Lok Adalat and that the officers of the Corporation had promised him to give employment, but it was not given. He had allegedly enclosed a final order dated 3.3.1999.

5. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the dismissal of the industrial dispute, Rule 48(2) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958 provides for setting aside an ex-parte order within 15 days, failing which with condonation delay application the same can be filed. As per the rules, the petitioner is entitled for get a free copy of the Award passed by the Labour Court. But, the petitioner did not choose to avail any of those remedies.

On the contrary, the petitioner had sent a letter, dated 10.11.2009 to the Labour Court stating that the management of the corporation had agreed to reinstate the petitioner without backwages and with service continuity, but no order has been given to him. Therefore, he wanted a copy of the Lok Adalat award dated 2.3.2007. The petitioner did not get any reply.

6. The counsel for the petitioner on coming to know about the ex-parte award, filed a copy application on 4.1.2010 and subsequently, received a certified copy on 8.1.2010. It is not clear as to why no application was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the Ex-parte Award. On the contrary, the present writ petition was filed with a curious prayer inasmuch as the ex-parte award dated 9.12.2009, should be dismissed in view of the agreement reached on 2.3.2007 before the Lok Adalat.

7. Mr.P.Vijendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that once the matter is seized by the Lok Adalat and an agreement is filed, the question of the Labour Court further g