Sri V. Rajkumar Vs. Sri C.M. Abu Mohammed (Since Deceased by His L.Rs. Smt. C.A. Zohra W/O Sri Abu Mohammed Rep. by P.A. Holder and ors.) and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- trade unions act, 1926[c.a. no. 16/1926]. section 2(h): [h.n. nagamohan das, j] settlement under section 18 of the industrial disputes act, 1947 negotiation with union held, in the absence of code of conduct recognising union which enjoys support of majority of workmen, it is not proper to exclude the recognised trade union from the proceedings before the tribunal. tradition of simultaneous but separate negotiation with both unions for sufficient length of time will have a binding force. impugned award was liable to be quashed.orderb.s. patil, j.1. sri m.d. raghunath, learned counsel files vakalath for the respondents.2. pursuant to the direction issued by this court on 22.04.2009, the deputy registrar, city civil court, mayo hall unit, is present before the court and submitted that the certified copies of the documents in hrc no. 200/1975 applied tor by the petitioner could not be issued as the records have been destroyed on 30.07.1988. he further submitted that the documents in o.s. no. 16707/2002 as sought by the petitioner have been dispatched by r.p.a.d. to his address and have been also forwarded to the court with a request to supply them to the petitioner. insofar as documents in execution no. 353/1977 are concerned, it is stated before the court that despite efforts made the said documents have not been traced and the search is on and if the file is traced, the documents sought for will be issued or else necessary endorsement in this regard will be issued to the petitioner.3. having due regard to this statement, i do not propose to retain this matter any more as it is sufficient to observe that in case the documents in execution no. 353/1977 are not raced, petitioner shall be issued an endorsement to the said effect so that the petitioner shall place the same before the court below.4. at this stage, it is brought to the notice of the court that the court below has closed the arguments of both the sides, though the counsel for the petitioner had no opportunity to advance the arguments as this case was pending. the matter, it is submitted is posted for judgment. counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to advance the arguments. 1 find justification in this contention. as the arguments are concluded during the pendency of this proceeding that too when a direction was issued to the deputy registrar to be present before this court to provide some information, i find it just and necessary to direct the court below to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to canvass arguments on his side. the court below shall hear him on 25.04.2009 or on any other subsequent date to which the case may be adjourned to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity to the parties.5. writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. copy of this order may be issued to the petitioner forthwith.

Judgment:
ORDER

B.S. Patil, J.

1. Sri M.D. Raghunath, learned Counsel files vakalath for the respondents.

2. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 22.04.2009, the Deputy Registrar, City Civil Court, Mayo Hall Unit, is present before the Court and submitted that the certified copies of the documents in HRC No. 200/1975 applied tor by the petitioner could not be issued as the records have been destroyed on 30.07.1988. He further submitted that the documents in O.S. No. 16707/2002 as sought by the petitioner have been dispatched by R.P.A.D. to his address and have been also forwarded to the Court with a request to supply them to the petitioner. Insofar as documents in Execution No. 353/1977 are concerned, it is stated before the Court that despite efforts made the said documents have not been traced and the search is on and if the file is traced, the documents sought for will be issued or else necessary endorsement in this regard will be issued to the petitioner.

3. Having due regard to this statement, I do not propose to retain this matter any more as it is sufficient to observe that in case the documents in Execution No. 353/1977 are not raced, petitioner shall be issued an endorsement to the said effect so that the petitioner shall place the same before the Court below.

4. At this stage, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the Court below has closed the arguments of both the sides, though the counsel for the petitioner had no opportunity to advance the arguments as this case was pending. The matter, it is submitted is posted for judgment. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to advance the arguments. 1 find justification in this contention. As the arguments are concluded during the pendency of this proceeding that too when a direction was issued to the Deputy Registrar to be present before this Court to provide some information, I find it just and necessary to direct the Court below to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to canvass arguments on his side. The Court below shall hear him on 25.04.2009 or on any other subsequent date to which the case may be adjourned to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity to the parties.

5. Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order may be issued to the petitioner forthwith.