- (1.) THE case of the petitioner, in short, is that he served as a workman in the services of the Managing Director, Kothari Global Limited, Kota (respondent No. 2 ). He was initially appointed as Electrical Supervisor in the establishment of respondent No. 2 with effect from 22. 4. 1996, till then he had discharged his duties without interruption with the respondents upto 29. 3. 1997.
(2.) THEREAFTER on 30. 3. 97 he was prevented from joining the duties as he had been placed under suspension with effect from the said date, he could not be permitted to attend the duty. The matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer on 25. 9. 97 by the petitioner himself. Consequent upon the failure report, the workman filed an application under Sec. 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short `the Act') for non- payment of subsistence allowance which was registered as Case No. 174/1997. The said petition was disposed of by the Labour Court as being not maintainable. Thereafter formal enquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in which the petitioner participated and ultimately the he was terminated with effect from 31. 1. 1998. In this context, it is relevant to note the provision of Section 33c (2) of the Act, which stipulates as under:- " (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government (within a period not exceeding three months): (Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit ). The aforesaid application was disposed of by the Labour Court on the ground that since service of the petitioner was not terminated by the management of respondent No. 2; rather he was suspended, thus, he was not entitled to any relief. From perusal of para-8 of the writ petition it is evident wherein the petitioner has contended as under:- That proceeding in this connection were held and petitioner also filed an affidavit as prepared by the counsel as well as he was also examined as witness. In this regard petitioner's statement was recorded before the presiding officer of the Labour Court in which he stated the fact regarding termination of services as on 31. 1. 98, the correct date of termination, but the discrepancy in the statement of claim regarding date of termination as 30. 3. 1997 qua 31. 1. 98 remained unnoticed. The true and correct photocopy of the affidavit and statement recorded before the learned Labour Court is being enclosed herewith and marked as Ann. 5 collectively. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that when the matter came up for final arguments before the Labour Court on 2. 6. 01, the aforesaid discrepancy in the statement of claim was also pointed out and requested for amendment of statement of claim, as such, he was also moved an application for necessary amendment under Order 6 Rule 19 CPC but the same was not taken into consideration in the impugned Award dated 2. 6. 01, which is under challenge in the instant petition.
(3.) IN para-4 of the impugned Award it has been specifically recorded by the Tribunal that since nobody appeared on behalf of the Management (respondent No. 2), the Tribunal thought it proper not to interfere in the matter as the matter has been proceeded with ex-parte. From perusal of the impugned award, I find that the same is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned Tribunal is directed to permit the petitioner to file amended statement of claim in view of the Reference made by the State Government and the respondent No. 1 is directed to adjudicate the matter afresh pursuant to Reference dated 9. 9. 99. ;