IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.07.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P. No. 5282 of 2017 and W.M.P. Nos.5597 and 5598 of 2017 The Management No.27, Mannargudi Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Rep. by its Managing Director Mannargudi – 614 001 Tiruvarur District. … Petitioner -vs-

1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Cuddalore.

2. P.Dhanaraj ... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned award I.D.No.78 of 2010 dated 18.08.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Cuddalore and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Premkumar For Respondents : R1-Court Mr.K.Sathiyamurthy (R2)

O R D E R

The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned award I.D.No.78 of 2010 dated 18.08.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Cuddalore.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent applied for doing appraising work on commission basis with the petitioner Society and the petitioner Society also engaged the second respondent to act as Appraiser. Without any intimation and permission, the second respondent abstained from duty, but after lapse of two years, the second respondent has raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Labour Court, Cuddalore. The Labour Court has passed an award in favour of the workmen and directed the petitioner to reinstate him along with backwages.

Aggrieved over the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent was not appointed in the service of the Society but was required to do the work of appraiser on commission basis at the rate of Rs.100/- and Rs.150/- respectively per day and he was not paid any salary for his engagement for his work as appraiser and without affording any opportunity to the Society, the Labour Court passed an ex-parte award and the same is perverse. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Haryana Suraj Malting Limited Vs. Phool Chand reported in 2018 (16) SCC 567.

Therefore, the learned counsel prays to allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent and remand the matter back to the first respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that this Court may fix the time limit to dispose of the same.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The second respondent was working as an Appraiser in the petitioner Society on commission Basis and he was unauthorized absent to the duty. Due to which, the petitioner terminated the service of the second respondent. After lapse of two years, the second respondent raised an Industrial Disputes and the same was set ex-parte by the Labour Court.

7. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Haryana Suraj Malting Limited Vs. Phool Chand reported in 2018 (16) SCC 567 is squarely applicable to the case on hand. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said order is quoted hereunder :-

''12. Thus, under the statutory scheme, the Labour Court/Tribunal is empowered to follow its own procedure as it thinks fit, meaning thereby, a procedure which is fit and proper for the settlement of the industrial dispute and for maintaining industrial peace. If a party fails to attend the Court/Tribunal without showing sufficient cause, the Court/Tribunal can proceed ex parte and pass an ex parte award. The award, ex parte or otherwise, has to be sent to the appropriate Government as soon as it is made and the appropriate Government has to publish it within 30 days of its