The court affirmed the dismissal of a petition due to the petitioner's negligence in maintaining defense against a labor dispute, emphasizing the principle of natural justice and procedural diligence.

J U D G M E N T

This Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 application seeking to set aside the ex parte award in Industrial Dispute No.07 of 2022, and to stay the proceedings initiated by the first respondent for execution of the award, pending consideration of Ext.P4 application by the Tribunal.

2. Shorn of unnecessary detail, the facts are that the respondent was the former Secretary of the Kambilikandam Ksheerotpataka Sahakarana Sanghom (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’), a Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969. She was suspended from service by the Society on 21.05.2012 pending an enquiry. Thereafter, based on the findings in the enquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service on 24.07.2013. According to the respondent, the enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication before the Tribunal and was numbered as I.D No. 24 of 2014. The respondent filed her claim statement in I.D.No.24 of 2014 on 19.12.2014. According to the respondent, though she diligently prosecuted the matter, the Society did not care to contest the matter, and on 23.11.2018, they were set ex parte. The respondent filed a proof affidavit on 25.01.2019, and an award was passed on 11.11.2021, directing her reinstatement with back wages. When the respondent sought enforcement of the award, the Society filed an application for setting aside the ex parte award in I.D.No.24 of 2014 and the same was allowed by the Tribunal. The industrial dispute was thereafter re-numbered as I.D.No.7 of 2022.

3. The petitioner/Society then filed a ten statement. However, thereafter, the petitioner/Society again remained absent, forcing the Tribunal to issue a fresh notice. Even after service of the fresh notice, the petitioner/Society remained absent and therefore, the Tribunal passed Ext.P1 award on 31.05.2024, once again directing reinstatement of the respondent with back wages. On the respondent filing an application for execution of the award, the petitioner/Society has filed Ext.P4 application, again seeking to set aside the ex parte award.

4. From the facts noticed above, it is clear that the Society was grossly negligent in conducting the case before the Tribunal. I.D.No.24 of 2014 was adjudicated by passing Ext.R-1(b) award on 17.12.2021. The application filed to set aside that award at the instance of the Society was allowed, and the Society was given an opportunity to contest the claim on merits. The industrial dispute was thereafter re-numbered as I.D.No.7 of

2022, and though a ten statement was filed, the Society thereafter failed to represent the matter before the Tribunal, forcing the Tribunal to issue a fresh notice. Even after the issuance of a fresh notice, the Society failed to appear before the Tribunal, forcing the Tribunal to declare the Society ex parte, and the Tribunal proceeded to pass Ext.P1 award on 31.05.2024. The respondent has thus been before the Tribunal seeking to get her disputes adjudicated for more than ten years, owing to the sheer callous attitude adopted by the petitioner/Society. The callous attitude of the petitioner/Society is not only causing severe prejudice to the respondent but is also placing an unnecessary burden on the Court system, which is already struggling to handle the large number of cases that it is called upon to adjudicate. The facts narrated above indicate that this is a case where the maxim ‘nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria’ squarely applies. I am aware that essent