- (1.) THE petitioner Company in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated July 22, 1971. By the impugned order the workman concerned was given time to file written statement in an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It appears that there was some proceedings against the workman and a domestic enquiry was held. The workman concerned was dismissed and as an industrial dispute was pending permission of the Tribunal was sought by making the application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act. From the facts stated in the order of the Tribunal it appears that the workman appeared on December 28, 1970 and prayed for time to file the written statement. Time was granted to him till january 16, 1971. The workman however did not appear on January 16, 1971. To give him opportunity to file written statement time was again extended to February 3, 1971. The workman again prayed for time on the said date and he was granted time till February 19,1971 for filing written statement. The workman did not appear on February 19, 1971 and did not file the written statement. Accordingly, the case was fixed for ex parte hearing, on March 4, 1971. The workman did not appear on March 4, 1971 and the case was taken up for hearing. The Company had examined one witness to prove some documents. Immediately thereafter, the workman appeared through his Advocate and filed a petition praying for an opportunity to file written statement. The Company objected to this.
(2.) THE learned Advocate for the workman submitted before the Tribunal that the workman could not take steps earlier to file written statement as he could not contact his lawyer due to financial difficulties. It was also submitted by the learned Advocate for the workman that the workman was suffering from illness. In those circumstances, the Tribunal was of the view that the workman should be given an opportunity to file the written statement. The Tribunal, however, ordered that the workman should pay costs to the company as the Company had to incur certain expenses. The Tribunal, therefore, permitted the workman to file the written statement on payment of Rs. 16/ as costs to the Company. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner Company has moved this application under article 226 of the Constitution. The Company contends that the tribunal had no jurisdiction or power to pass the impugned order.
(3.) IN support of this contention reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Gungaram Tea Company Ltd. v. Second Labour Court and another (1967 2 LLJ 325 ). There B. C. Mitra, J. , held that the Tribunal was a statutory authority. It had therefore no inherent power to direct a matter to be heard afresh after in the order-sheet it was recorded that evidence was closed. In that case it was clear that the Tribunal gave sufficient opportunity to both the respondent workman as also the union to appear before it and present their case with regard to the application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act, that opportunity was not availed of and there was no reason, according to the Court, why the Tribunal which was a statutory body should be allowed to hear the matter afresh when the statute by which it was created did not expressly or by implication confer any power upon it. It appears in that case that on April 23, 1965 the Tribunal recorded an order that the evidence was closed and directed the matter to be put up on May 3,. 1965 for orders. In the instant case though there is an averment in the petition that there was some endorsement in the order-sheet of the Tribunal that evidence in the case was closed from the facts stated by the Tribunal it does not appear that any formal order had been passed that evidence was closed and to put up the matter for orders as were the facts of the case of Gungaram Tea Company Ltd. (1967 2 LLJ 325), mentioned hereinbefore. It appears from the order of the Tribunal that one witness had been examined. There is nothing on record to show that there was any order closing the petitioner's case as such formally recorded in the minutes of the Tribunal. In those circumstances I am of opinion that the facts of the instant case are different from the facts before B. C. Mitra, J. The ratio of the aforesaid decision is therefore not applicable.;