High Court set aside Labour Court's order dismissing execution applications, remitting matter for fresh consideration, noting management's claim of compromise was ignored despite marked voucher.
Impugned common order dated 18.3.2011 set aside; matter remitted to Labour Court to consider E.A.s afresh within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P.NO.16031 OF 2011
O R D E R
Heard both the counsel.
2. 2nd respondent herein is the workman in the writ petitioner – Hotel. Aggrieved by his termination, he raised I.D.No.16 of 2011 on the file of Industrial Tribunal – cum- Labour Court, Anantapur. By award dated 16.10.2004, the Labour Court directed for reinstatement with continuity of service. As the award was not implemented, the workman filed execution petition in E.P.No.6 of 2007 in I.D.No.16 of 2011. The case of the writ petitioner – management is that the workman entered into a compromise and received certain amount in lieu of reinstatement and executed a memo to that effect. As the same could not be brought to the notice of the Labour Court, E.A.Nos.15, 16 and 17 of 2011 were filed seeking the Labour Court to reopen the case for recalling M.W.1 for description of a document and marking of the same. By the impugned common order dated 18.3.2011, the Labour Court dismissed the same on the ground that though sufficient opportunity was given to the Management, it failed to avail the same.
3. From the material on record, it could be seen that the case of the management as stated in the writ affidavit is that the workman entered into compromise and received certain amount in lieu of reinstatement and executed a memo to that effect, but the same could not be brought to the notice of the court, because of non-availability of the said memo at the relevant point of time. However, the cash payment voucher was marked as Ex.M2. From the impugned order, it could be seen that the oblivious of these circumstances and only holding that the management failed to avail the opportunity given to it, dismissed the E.As.
4. Having regard to the above circumstances, the impugned
common order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court, to consider E.A.s, afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs.
AVS -----------------------------------24—11—2011
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court order dismissing E.A.s for failure to avail opportunity was correct ignoring marked payment vouchers relating to the alleged compromise.
Whether the higher court should remit the matter to the Labour Court to consider execution applications afresh.
Whether to set aside the impugned common order dated 18.3.2011 in the execution petition regarding reinstatement award.
Hotel Management
Workman
G.CHANDRAIAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
