Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) -The petitioner-employers aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court II, U. P., Ghaziabad dated 12th September, 1997, passed in Adjudication Case No. 67 of 1991, have approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE following dispute was referred to before the Labour Court or adjudication : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... After receipt of the reference, the Labour Court issued notices to both the employers as well as the employee-workman, who have put in appearance and filed written statements. The workman has filed rejoinder-affidavit and also adduced the evidence. The case set up by the petitioner-workman in short is that he was appointed on 2nd February, 1987, as Milligan with the employer and since his work was satisfactory, therefore, he was confirmed in August, 1987, after completion of the probation period. Thereafter, the workman concerned has worked up to 8th October, 1988, without there being any complaint whatsoever. It is because of the demand of the workman for wages in accordance with law and uniform, etc., which annoyed the employers and they served a charge-sheet on the workman on 8th October, 1988 in which flimsy and false allegations were levelled against the workman concerned, which have been denied by him by filing reply dated 10th October, 1988. Thereafter the employers have set up a domestic enquiry, which was conducted by Sri Sudarshan Sharma, who was none else but their legal advisor. The workman filed an application for change of the enquiry officer, but his request has not been accepted by the employers. The aforesaid enquiry officer has conducted the domestic enquiry contrary to the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as even after the enquiry report has allegedly been submitted against the workman, he was not supplied with the copy of the enquiry report. Ultimately on 4th April, 1989, the services of the workman concerned were arbitrarily and illegally terminated. All these allegations have been denied by the employers in their written statement. The employers have also raised some technical objections with regard to the reference and competence of the authority of the reference as well as the provisions of law under which the reference has been made. On the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties, the Labour Court has framed the following additional issues. Both the parties have filed their rejoinder-affidavits and documentary evidence : "(1) Whether as per stand taken by the workman in paras 1 and 2 of their written statement, the reference is contrary to law? If yes, what is its effect? (2) Whether according to para 11 of the written statement, the workman is gainfully employed? If yes, what is its effect? (3) Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the employers is contrary to the principles of natural justice? If so, what is its effect?"
(3.) THE Labour Court has first of all taken issue No. 3 for adjudication and arrived at the conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the employers was contrary to the principles of natural justice. THE Labour Court has further recorded a finding that it was open to the employers to have demonstrated by leading evidence before the Labour Court that the charges levelled against the workman concerned are brought home (established), but the employers have not proved the same before the Labour Court by adducing any evidence. So far as the issue Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, both the issues have been decided against the employers and in favour of the workman concerned. In view of the aforesaid findings on the additional issues 1, 2 and 3 have been decided in favour of the workman, the Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the employers have illegally and arbitrarily terminated the services of the workman concerned with effect from 4th April, 1989. THE Labour Court therefore, directed reinstatement of the workman concerned with continuity of service and full back wages. Against the aforesaid award, the employers preferred an application 23D that the aforesaid award is an ex parte award, which is passed without hearing the employers. The Labour Court while rejecting the aforesaid application 23D has recorded a finding that the Labour Court granted several time on several occasion as would be clear from the order sheet, but employers have neither filed any rejoinder-affidavit, nor produced any evidence. The Labour Court further held that on 7th March, 1996, evidence of the workman was completed and thereafter the employers have been given time on several occasions, but they did not adduce any evidence. Therefore, by the order dated 21st May, 1997, the Labour Court closed the evidence and thereafter several dates were fixed i.e., 9th July, 1997, 22nd July, 1997 and 11th August, 1997, for argument, but nobody appeared on behalf of the employers. In these circumstances on 9th September, 1997, the case was heard by the Labour Court and the award was reserved after hearing the workman concerned and thereafter the award was announced on 12th September, 1997. The Labour Court has categorically recorded a finding that the employers have miserably failed to give any explanation as to why they have not adduced any evidence and why they have not participated in the proceedings, as stated above. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the employers have deliberately not participated in the proceedings, which has resulted as they say into the ex parte award. Even in the present application (23-D), the employers have not given any explanation as to why they remained absent. In these circumstances, the Labour Court rejected the application 23D, i.e., the application for setting aside the award dated 12th September, 1997. In fact the aforesaid order rejecting the application 23D in the teeth of the findings recorded by the Labour Court that no explanation what to say satisfactory explanation for absence of the employers does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;