Non-payment of costs should not lead to debarring the petitioner from prosecuting the case.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. Petitioner Mohinder Singh (Workman) has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 24.2.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, whereby the petitioner was debarred to prosecute his case for non-payment of costs; and the order dated 15.9.2003 vide which his application for recalling the aforesaid order has been dismissed.

2. The services of the petitioner, who was working as Helper-cum-Tyreman in Haryana Roadways, were terminated by the General Manager vide order dated 16.2.1990. The petitioner sought a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court. When before the Labour Court the matter was pending at the stage of evidence on 9.12.2002, the petitioner was not present for his evidence, then the case was adjourned for 24.2.2003 for the evidence of the petitioner on payment of costs of Rs. 100/-. On 24.2.2003, the petitioner could not reach to the Court and when the costs were not paid, the Labour Court debarred the petitioner to prosecute his case for nonpayment of costs under Section 35-B of the Code of Civil Procedure. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for recalling the said order, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 15.9.2003 on the ground that the plea taken by the workman for not attending the Court on 24.2.2003 is false and without any basis and substance, as the petitioner could not place on record the medical certificate nor any other evidence to show that on the said date he was ill and could not come to the Court.

3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders. In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The Labour Court while debarring the workman from prosecuting his case has completely forgotten that the petitioner workman was out of service since 1990 and further if on a particular date he was not present, his explanation could not be discarded merely on the ground that he has not produced the medical certificate. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement of the workman on affidavit should have been believed. Merely on the non-payment of costs of Rs. 100/-, the petitioner should not have been debarred to prosecute his case. In Manohar Lal v. Amarnath (2002-1) 124 P.L.R. 415 and Devi Bai Smt. widow of Ch. Mangha Ram v. Gurbachan Singh (2000-2) 125 P.L.R. 21. this Court has taken the view that due to the failure of non-payment of costs, normally the defence should not be struck off and the Court is competent to enlarge the period. 4 in these circumstances, I allow this petition and the impugned orders dated 24.2.2003 and 15.9.2003, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala are set aside and the Labour Court is directed to proceed further with the case in accordance with law.