U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - the labour court in its order dated april 27, 1982 has held that although the application seeking setting aside the exparte award was drafted on november 20, 1981 but the same was of some unexplained reasons presented only on december 5, 1981. the labour court observed that the proceedings before the labour court had concluded on the date on which the award became enforceable and since the application of the employers seeking setting aside of the ex-parte award had been made after conclusion of the proceedings whereupon the award became enforceable, the application was liable to fail. 7. in the present case what i find is that thetribunal has clearly observed that although theapplication for setting aside the award wasdrafted on november 20, 1981 yet for unexplainable reasons, it was presented on december5, 1981. in the award itself, the tribunal hadinoticed that the employer had been sufficientlyserved. (supra) stands clearly attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. in the aforesaid view of the matter, the writ petition is clearly devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.s.p. srivastava, j.1. feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the respondent no. 2, the labour court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the exparte award dated september 25, 1981 and also by the order of the labor court dated september 11, 1981 whereunder it had ordered to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner in the adjudication case, the petitioner has now approached this court seeking redress praying for the quashing of both the aforesaid orders.2. it is significant to note that the petitioner has not sought for the quashing of the order dated april 27, 1982 whereunder the application riled by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the ex-parte award dated september 25, 1981 had been rejected.3. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. it appears that on the basis of a reference made under section 4-k of the u.p. industrial disputes act the labour court gave an award accepting the claim of the workman and holding that he was entitled to the designation of 'tin smith' with effect from the month of april, 1980 and for payment of salary to him in the time scale of pay of rs. 230-385 and further requiring the employer to fix his salary in that time scale of pay and pay arrears of the salary. in the award it has been noticed that the summons issued in the adjudication case were served on the employer on september 10, 1981 but inspite of service, the employer had not turned up to contest the claim of the workman. the award was displayed on the notice board on october 29, 1981 and published on november 2, 1981. the employer asserted that it had received a copy of the award on november 13, 1981 and filed an application dated november 20, 1981 seeking setting aside of the exparte award. the labour court in its order dated april 27, 1982 has held that although the application seeking setting aside the exparte award was drafted on november 20, 1981 but the same was of some unexplained reasons presented only on december 5, 1981. the labour court observed that the proceedings before the labour court had concluded on the date on which the award became enforceable and since the application of the employers seeking setting aside of the ex-parte award had been made after conclusion of the proceedings whereupon the award became enforceable, the application was liable to fail. the application was accordingly dismissed.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the labour court had dismissed the application seeking setting aside of the ex-parte award on a technical ground of the said application having been filed subsequent to the award having become enforceable which view is patently erroneous. it has been urged that the labour court continued to retain its jurisdiction to entertain an application for setting aside an exparte award even after the award had become enforceable as the labour court could not be deemed to have become functus officio once the award published in the official gazette.5. there can be no manner of doubt that the labour court or tribunal has the requisite power to deal with an application properly made before it for setting aside the ex-parte award and pass suitable orders. however, rule 16(2) of the u.p. industrial disputes rules 1947 provides that the labour court may set aside the order passed against a party in its absence if within ten days of such order, the party applies in writing for setting aside such order and shows sufficient cause for the absence. from the observations made by the apex court in its decision in the case of satnam verma v. union of india (1985-i-llj-79) (sc) there can be no manner of doubt that a labour court or tribunal has the power to deal with an application properly made before it for setting aside ex-parte award and pass suitable orders even if the ex-parte award has become enforceable as no finality is attached to an exparte award because it is always subject to its being set aside on sufficient cause being shown.6. however, taking into consideration the implications arising under rule 16(2) of the u.p. industrial disputes rules, 1957 this court in its decision in the case of u.p. state electricity board and anr. v. presiding officer, industrial tribunal (1985 (51) flr 551 had indicated that the labour court may set aside the order passed against the party in his absence, if within ten days of such order, the party applies in writing for setting aside such order, and shows sufficient cause for his absence.7. in the present case what i find is that thetribunal has clearly observed that although theapplication for setting aside the award wasdrafted on november 20, 1981 yet for unexplainable reasons, it was presented on december5, 1981. in the award itself, the tribunal hadinoticed that the employer had been sufficientlyserved.8. in the circumstances therefore, the ratio ofthe decision in the case of u.p. state electricityboard and anr. (supra) stands clearly attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case.in the aforesaid view of the matter, the writ petition is clearly devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. there shall however, be no orders as to costs.