Allowed

Life Insurance Corpor of India v. Central Industrial Tribunal andA

Rajasthan HC5 Oct 2015CW/1801/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash an ex-parte award and the Tribunal's order rejecting a recall application. The Court condoned the delay in applying to set aside the award due to the sudden death of the employer's representative and errors in recording dates. The matter was remanded for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the ex-parte award dated 13th October, 2004, and the order dated 26th September, 2007. Remanded the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for afresh decision with an opportunity of hearing.

Life Insurance Corpor of India Vs Central… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

ORDER

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1801/2008

¶5

Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus

¶6

Central Industrial Tribunal & Anr.

¶7

Date of Order :: 5^th October, 2015

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶9

Mr. Arun Sharma for petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kashyap for respondent No.2.

¶10

<><><>

¶11

BY THE COURT :

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerCorporation, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, submits that on account of sudden demise of their representative, namely, Late Shri U.C. Baberwal (Labour Adviser), on 26^th August, 2004; the petitioner-Corporation made alternative arrangements. While the departmental representative, who had gone to note the next date of the matter from the Tribunal, instead of '17^th September, 2004', recorded the next date as '17^th December, 2004', and therefore, the petitioner-Corporation could not participate in the proceedings before the Tribunal, resulting into an ex-parte award dated 13^th October, 2004.

¶13

It is further contended that it was only on 1^st December, 2004, the petitioner-Corporation learnt about the fact of ex-parte award dated 13^th October, 2004. On 14^th December, 2004, an application for obtaining a certified copy of the ex-parte award was moved by the petitioner-Corporation and the copy was received on 21^st December, 2004. Without loss of time, an application for

¶14

¶15

recalling the ex-parte award under Rule 22-A of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958'), was filed on 27^th December, 2004. The Tribunal has declined the application under Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1958; vide impugned order dated 27^th December, 2004, purely on technical grounds ignoring the factual matrix and the singular facts and circumstances of the case.

¶16

Having considered the fact that it was on account of sudden demise of the representative of the petitioner-Corporation, Late Shri U.C. Baberwal; the departmental representative, appeared and noted a wrong date i.e. on '17^th December, 2004', instead of '17^th September, 2004', which resulted into an ex-parte award dated 13^th October, 2004, impugned herein.

¶17

Resisting the writ application, Mr. Suresh Kashyap, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-workman, has relied upon the opinion of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Department, Bundi v. Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Kota & Ors. : 1994 (2) WLC (Raj.) 455 . However, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – workman agreed to remand of the matter subject to the condition that the matter may be decided within a time frame since the termination of the respondent-workman dates back to the year 1996 and exparte award was made on 13^th October, 2004.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar.

¶19

¶20

Indisputably, on account of sudden demise of the representative of the petitioner-Corporation, Late Shri U.C. Baberwal, on 26^th August, 2004, created a situation wherein the departmental representative had gone to inquire about the date in the matter before the Tribunal and it was on account of error that instead of '17^th September, 2004, the departmental representative noted the next date in the case as '17^th December, 2004', which resulted into the ex-parte proceedings culminating into an ex-parte award dated 13^th October, 2004. The facts of ex-parte proceedings/award surfaced to the petitioner-Corporation in view of an application submitted by the petitioner-workman on 1^st December, 2004, including a copy of the impugned ex-parte award. 7. Having obtained the certified copy of the ex-parte award on 21^st December, 2004, an application under Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1958, was preferred on 27^th December, 2004, which has been declined on 26^th September, 2007, holding it to be beyond the statutory period of limitation of 15 days as contemplated under Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1958.

¶21

The opinion of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Department, Bundi (supra), was rendered in the backdrop of the fact that none appeared on behalf of the employer on 28^th August, 1999, the date, which was fixed after due notice to the employer. The ex-parte award was made on 10^th January, 1991, and the application under Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1958, for setting aside the ex-parte decision was preferred after an inordinate and unexplained delay of four months and

¶22

¶23

twelve days, whereas in the instant case at hand, the ex-parte proceedings were drawn on 17^th September, 2004, and the petitioner-Corporation could not put in appearance for the departmental representative noted a wrong date i.e. '17^th December, 2004' instead of '17^th September, 2004'. Moreover, when the fact of ex-parte proceedings and the impugned ex-parte award dated 13^th October, 2004, surfaced to the knowledge of the petitioner-Corporation on 1^st December, 2004, an application obtaining certified copy was filed on 14^th December, 2004, which was made available on 21^st December, 2004, and an application under Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1958, was preferred on 27^th December, 2004, which has been declined on 26^th September, 2007.

¶24

The Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, according to the mandate of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958, are vested with the powers to proceed ex-parte and also to set aside either wholly or in part an ex-parte decision. Rule 22 and Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1958, read thus:-

¶25

“22. Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may proceed ex-parte:

¶26

If without sufficient cause being shown, any party to proceeding before a Board, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator fails to attend or to be represented, the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may proceed as if the party had duly attended or has been represented.

¶27

22-A. Setting aside ex-parte decision.

¶28

(1) On an application made within fifteen days of the ex-parte decision, the Board, Court, Labour Court,

¶29

¶30

Tribunal or Arbitrator may, on sufficient cause being shown after notice to the opposite party set aside either wholly or in part an ex-parte decision.

¶31

(2) The Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may on an application, extend the time of fifteen days as prescribed in sub-rule (1) on sufficient cause being shown.

¶32

(3) Application under sub-rules (1) and (2) shall be supported by an affidavit.”

¶33

A glance of Rule 22-A(2) provides for extension of time for 15 days as prescribed under sub-rule (1) on sufficient cause being shown. From the singular facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner-Corporation has been able to show sufficient cause for not preferring the application under Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1958, within 15 days of the ex-parte decision by the Tribunal. Thus, the opinion referred to and relied upon is of no help to the respondentworkman. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondentworkman has agreed for remand of the matter from the stage exparte proceedings drawn i.e. 17^th September, 2004.

¶34

For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, there is sufficient cause to condone the delay as the matter has been decided by the learned Tribunal without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Corporation.

¶35

For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.

¶36

In the result, ex-parte award dated 13^th October, 2004, and order dated 26^th September, 2007, are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶37

¶38

The matter is remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal for decision afresh affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitionerCorporation from the stage ex-parte proceedings were drawn.

¶39

Since, both the parties are represented through their counsel before this Court, no fresh notice be issued. The parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal on 26^th October, 2015, as prayed and agreed upon by the learned counsel for the petitionerCorporation.

¶40

It is expected that the Industrial Tribunal would conclude the matter as expeditiously as possible, however, in no case later than within six months from 26^th October, 2015.

¶41

Looking to the singular facts and circumstance of the case, a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees : Five Thousand Only), is imposed upon the petitioner-Corporation, which would be paid to the respondentworkman on or before 26^th October, 2015.

¶42

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA), J.

¶43

Sunil/P.A.

¶44

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶45

(Sunil Solanki) P.A.

Life Insurance Corpor of India v. Central Industrial Tribunal andA

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Life Insurance Corpor of India v. Central Industrial Tribunal andA

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijendra Singh Rawat Vs State Forest Departmentors

Ugrasen Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Dev Pal Bairwa and Ors. Vs Purshottam Agarwal and Others

Kailash Chaudhary @ Sethilal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Harish Kumar Meghwal andORS Vs R P S C Ajmer and Anr.

Akram @ Ladla Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp