Anaparthi Srinivasa Rao, Vs Labor Court

ANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O.SRIRAMA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC- DOCTOR, R/O.C/O.SRI SAI SNEHA MEDICAL AND GENERAL STORES, OPPOSITE AXIS BANK, TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE CITY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

LABOR COURT, REP. BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

PIRAMAL HEALTH CARE LTD, REP.BY.PRESIDENT (CORPORATE), D-MART BUILDING, GOREGAON MULUND LINK ROAD, MULUND, W MUMBAI-400 080.

¶15

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD, REP.BY GENERAL MANAGER (HR), D MART BUILDING, GOREGAON MULUND LINK ROAD, MULUND, W.MUMBAI-400 080.

¶16

PIRARNAL HEALTHCARE LTD, REP.BY.ITS ZONAL MANAGER, DR.NO.5-9-30, BASHEERBAUGH PALACE COLONY, ROAD.NO.4, BASHEERBAUGH, HYDERABAD - 500 063.

¶17

2

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for entire records connected with order dated 28-09-2019 passed in IA.140 of 2019 in ID.2 of 2010 and order dated 30-12-2015 passed in ID.2 of 2010 on the file of 1st respondent as was the same notified in GORT.153, labour employment training and factories (OP) dated 23-02-2016, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and contrary to the industrial dispute Act and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the order dated 28-09-2019 passed in IA.140 of 2019 in ID.2 of 2010 and order dated 30-12-2015 passed in 1D.2 of 2010 on the file of 1st respondent as was the same notified in GORT.153, labour employment training and factories (OP) dated 23-02- 2016 and pass such other order.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.CHALLA HRUDAY RAJ

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR LABOUR

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

3

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.2070 of 2023

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the Order dated 28.09.2019 passed in I.A.No.140 of 2019 in ID.No.2 of 2010 and Order dated 30.12.2015 passed in I.D.No.2 of 2010 by the Labour Court, Guntur.

¶30

The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows;

¶31

The Petitioner was appointed as Medical and Sales Representative on 15.04.1991 in the Respondent-Company and was initially posted at Ongole headquarters during the probation period. After completion of the probation period, the services of the Petitioner were confirmed and the Petitioner had achieved the targets as given by the Respondent-Company. While so, on 01.10.2009, the services of the Petitioner were terminated.

¶32

Questioning the same, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Guntur seeking to set-aside the order of termination and for consequential relief of reinstatement with all attendant benefits,

¶33

4

¶34

back-wages and continuity of service. The said application was dismissed for default on 30.12.2015.

¶35

Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an application vide I.A.No.140 of 2019 seeking to set-aside the default order passed in October, 2018 along with an application to condone delay of 984 days. A detailed Counter was filed by the Respondents and the Labour Court on 28.09.2019 dismissed the said I.A, as no sufficient cause is made out stating that as to why the Petitioner was prevented from filing I.A.No.140 of 2019 within the stipulated period. Hence, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

¶36

Though notices were ordered to the Respondents, there is no appearance on their behalf.

¶37

The learned counsel for the Petitioner primarily contended that the Labour Courts does not have power to dismiss the application for default of appearance of a party and further submitted that there is no provision for applicability of Limitation Act to the Labour Courts.

¶38

Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Agra Electric Supply Co. Ltd., v. The Labour Court, Meerut and

¶39

5

¶40

another 1 and Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and another² in support of his contention.

¶41

Apart from that, the learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the Petitioner was suffering from T.B and other ailments, as such, he could not pursue the case and therefore there was delay of 984 days.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶43

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Agra Electric Supply Co. Ltd., case held that neither the Act nor the Rules empower a Tribunal or Labour Court to dismiss an application for default of appearance of a party. The relevant portion thereof is extracted below;

¶44

“.... Neither the Act nor the rules empower a Tribunal or Labour Court to dismiss an application for default of appearance of a party. Rule 16 (1) is the only provision providing for what is to be done when a party is absent. That provision, which clearly enjoins the Labour Court or Tribunal in the circumstances mentioned therein "to proceed with the case in his absence", either on the date fixed or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, coupled with the further direction "and pass such order as it may deem fit and proper", clearly indicates that the Tribunal or Labour Court

¶45

1 AIR 1970 Supreme Court 806

¶46

2 (2015) 15 SCC 1

¶47

6

¶48

should take up the case and decide it on merits and not dismiss it for default . Without attempting to be exhaustive, we shall just give an example. Where a workman, after leading some evidence in support of his claim, absents himself on the next adjourned date with the result that he does not lead further evidence, the Tribunal is bound to proceed with the case on such evidence as has been placed before it. It cannot dismiss the application on the ground of default of appearance of the workman. This will be an instance of "proceeding with the case in the absence of a party" and giving a decision on merits. If such an order is passed by the Tribunal in the absence of one or other of the parties before it, a right is given to such party to apply, under sub-rule (2) for setting aside the order that has been passed in his absence in the case in terms of sub-rule (1). The application must be filed within the period mentioned in sub-rule (2) and the party will have also to satisfy the Tribunal or Labour Court that he had sufficient cause for his absence. The necessity for filing an application for setting aside an order passed in the case in the absence of a party, as contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 will only arise when an order on merits affecting the case has been passed in the absence of a party, under sub-rule (1) of Rule 16. An order dismissing a case for default or non-prosecution does not come under sub-rule (1) of Rule 16 and to such an order sub-rule (2) has no application.”

¶49

In the light of the above Judgment, the very dismissal of the ID for default being contrary to the provisions of the Act, the Order dated 30.12.2015 is liable to be set-aside.

¶50

7

¶51