Allowed

M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Raj Nagar Exchange Ghaziabad v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour COURT-1 and10 Ors.

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2021WRIC/46367/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition setting aside an ex-parte labour court award for non-application of mind, lack of independent findings, and absence of reasons, remitting the matter for fresh adjudication after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned ex-parte award dated 14.06.2017 was set aside and the matter remitted to the labour court for fresh decision after hearing all parties.

M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Raj Nagar… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46367 of 2017 Petitioner :- M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Raj Nagar Exchange Ghaziabad Respondent :- Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court-1 And10 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- Babu Lal Ram,Santosh Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

The impugned ex-parte award dated 14.06.2017, the tribunal below has recorded that the despite several opportunities granted to the management, it failed to cross examine the applicant/workman and the right to cross examination was closed. Thereafter the tribunal below goes to hold " it follows a natural corollary that the entire evidence of the applicant/workmen goes unrebutted."

¶6

While rendering an ex-parte award, the labour court was under an obligation of law to accord full consideration to the pleadings, evidences and materials in the record and to make independent findings on relevant issues on the footing of such materials. The credibility of the pleadings, evidences and materials have to be tested by the court below even in an exparte award. In the instant case, the labour court has neglected to make such findings. The case stated by the petitioner in its pleadings has not been considered.

¶7

The award is bereft of reasons on all material issues. The labour court was misdirected in law by mechanically accepting the evidence of the applicant/workman only on the footing that the same was not refuted by the petitioner-employer. The impugned award is vitiated by non application of mind.

¶8

In D evyani Beverages Ltd. Vs. Labour Court II, Deputy

¶9

¶10

Labour Commissioner¹ , this Court held:

¶11

"13. In the present case, the award has been passed merely on the basis of the written statement of the employee. The entire award is bereft of any discussion on the merits of the case. A perusal of the award shows that only the case of the workman has been set out and without analytically examining the material on record and recording reasons for its conclusion, the claim of the employer has been allowed simply on account of the provisions of Rule 12 (9) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957. The said award being totally unsupported by reasons or discussions, cannot be said to be an award on merits of the case Failure to give reasons would amount to denial of justice. The award speaks of the filing of the written statement by the employer but has not dealt on the comparative merit of the claims and counter claims. Jumping to the conclusion that the termination of the workman was illegal after merely setting out the factual aspect of the case, and without discussing the merits, would render the award illegal and unsustainable in law. There is no analytical examination of the merits of the claim which shows total non-application of mind."

¶12