R.R.K.Trivedi, J. - (1.) Aforesaid writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 18th May, 1994 passed by the Labour Court-II, U. P., Ghaziabad by which five cases, namely, Misc. Case Nos. 108 of 1986. 110 of 1986. 111 of 1986. 112 of 1986 and 113 of 1986 under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') were decided in favour of workmen. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5743 of 1995 shall be the leading writ petition in which the arguments have been made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard Sri A. K. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Sinha learned counsel appearing for workmen.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the workmen Sohan Pal Singh. Sohan Lal, Har Saran Singh, Ant Ram and Kunwar Pal Singh were employed as permanent Seasonal Clerks in Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.. Anupshahr, district Bulandshahr. By order dated 22nd November, 1982 on certain allegations, they were suspended. It appears that some amount was embezzled and petitioner Immediately initiated actions against suspended employees. In 1986, aforesaid workmen filed applications under Section 33C (2) of the Act raising grievances that they were not being paid their subsistence allowance. In response to the notice Issued to the aforesaid application, petitioner appeared and filed objection, inter alia, on the ground that these workmen were dismissed from service on 29th November. 1982 and hence they are not entitled for subsistence allowance. In support of their respective cases, both the parties filed their written statement as well as documents. It also appears that after filing the documents and written statement, a default was committed on the part of the petitioner as no body appeared before Labour Court. The Labour Court proceeded ex parte against the petitioner. An application was filed for setting aside the order passed ex parte which was also rejected on 17.2.1994. The Labour Court heard the arguments of both the parties and passed order dated 18.5.1994 directing the petitioner to pay the amount Indicated in the order to the five employees aggrieved by which this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that along with written statement eight documents filed which have been noticed in the order out of which five documents were the certified copies of the written statement filed by the aforesaid workmen in the suit filed against them for the recovery of the amount which was embezzled by them and thus certified copies required no proof and could be read in evidence. These documents were filed on 8th April. 1987, i.e.. before the order to proceed ex parte passed against petitioner was passed. The Labour Court committed a serious illegality in not considering these documents which contained admission on the part of the petitioner that they were paid of from the service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as continuance of the workmen in the employment after 29th November, 1982, was a disputed fact, it was not open to the Labour Court in proceedings under Section 33C (2) of the Act directing payment of the subsistence allowance after the date of dismissal which was not challenged in appropriate proceedings. Learned counsel has placed reliance in case of Central inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Workmen and another, 1974 (29) FLR 56 (SC) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another. 1995 SCC (I & S) 296. Learned counsel has submitted that the order of the Labour Court ignoring the order of dismissal dated 29th November. 1982, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.;