IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE

13th OF MARCH, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 5876 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

DHARMENDRA SINGH S/O RAVENDRA SINGH R/O JAGRITI COLONY NEAR PETROL PUMP DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI ROHIT SINGH - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. FOREST RANGE OFFICER MP FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION KUNDAM PROJECT DIVISION JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. INCHARGE RANGER BADWARA RANGE DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI V.S.CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE)

(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI K.S.BAGHEL – GOVT. ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 28.8.2023 passed by Industrial Tribunal Jabalpur in Reference Case No.18/2022/IDR by which the right of the petitioner to lead evidence has been closed.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a claim petition before the Industrial Tribunal for his reinstatement. On 21.6.2023 he could not appear before the Tribunal and his counsel also could not appear when the case was called, therefore, the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner and closed the right of the petitioner to produce evidence. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC on 26.6.2023 pointing out his bonafide reasons. However, by order dated 28.8.2023 the application has been dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal does not have power and jurisdiction under the Industrial Dispute Central Rules 1957 and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-

parte proceedings.

3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner was not present and as his evidence was also not recorded, then instead of closing the right of the petitioner to lead evidence, the Labour Court should have dismissed the claim for want of prosecution but after closing the right of the petitioner to lead evidence, fixed the case for filing of documents by the employer. Even otherwise, the petitioner has made a sufficient ground for setting aside ex-parte proceedings. It is further submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others, reported in 1980 (Supp.) SCC 420 has held that Industrial Tribunal has ancillary and incidental powers to set aside its ex-parte award if it is found that the party was prevented by sufficient cause.

4. Thus, it is submitted that Labour Court has jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte proceedings against the applicant.

5. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Without adverting to the facts of the case as to whether the Labour Court should have dismissed the claim for want of prosecution or should have closed the right of the petitioner to lead evidence thereby fixing the case for recording of evidence of the Employer, it is sufficient to mention here that application under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. has been rejected on the ground that Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said application whereas the Supreme Court in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. (supra) has held as under :-

6. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal had the power to pass the impugned order if it thought fit in the interest of justice. It is true that there is no express provision in the Act or the rules framed thereunder giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to do so. But it is a well known rule of statutory construction that a Tribunal or body should be considered to be endowed with such ancillary or incidental powers as are necessary to discharge its functions effectively for the purpose of doing justice between the parties. In a case of this nature, we are of the view that the Tribunal should be considered as invested with such incidental or anc