WP(C) 3304/2002 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Kejriwal, learned counsel for t he respondent. The petitioner union by the present petition has challenged the award da ted 05.07.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No.28/1997, whereby and whereunder the reference was answered in favour of the management. The petitioner has also prayed for direction to the Labour Court to allow them to adduce evidence apart from challenging the order dated 06.11.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer in Misc. Case No.1/2001 arising out of the said reference case, by which order the application filed by the petitioners for setting aside the award and to allow them to adduce evidenc e, has been rejected. The reference was made by the State Government on 17.03.1997 to the Labo ur Court at Dibrugarh for adjudication of the following 2(two) issues:- 1. Whether the management of Sookerating Tea Estate, Doom Dooma are justifi ed in dismissing the services of Sarvashree (1) Sunil Bhawar, (2) Alia Somari, ( 3) Anand Mahendra, (4) Bhaikari Telenga, (5) Lakheswar Haru, (6) Smt. Rajmoni Bh ujua, (7) Smt. Etwari Petron, (8) Smt. Puspabati Sunil, (9) Smt. Sundari Birsa, (10) Smt. Susari Babulal and (11) Smt. Parboti w.e.f. 17.1.95? 2. If not, whether the workmen are entitled to get reinstatement of any oth er relief in lieu thereof? On receipt of the notices, both the union as well as the management ente red appearance and filed their respective written statements. The management als o examined their witnesses, who were cross-examined by the union representing th e concerned workmen. The evidence from the side of the management was closed on 13.11.2000 and thereafter the case was fixed for workmen’s witness. After granti ng few adjournments, the case was ultimately fixed for examining the workmen’s w itness on 21.06.2001, on which date since neither the workmen nor the union was present, the learned Presiding Officer fixed the case on 04.07.2001 for hearing the argument, on which date also neither the workmen nor the union was present. The Labour Court after hearing the learned counsel for the management passed the award on 05.07.2001. The union thereafter filed an application, which was regis tered and numbered as Misc. Case No.1/2001 praying for setting aside the said aw ard passed in the aforesaid reference case contending inter alia that due to som e mechanical defect of the bus, by which the witnesses for the workmen were trav elling from Doom Dooma to Dibrugarh, they could not appear in Court in time and when they could appear at 12.30 P.M., the order was passed. It has also been con tended in the said application that on 04.07.2001 also nobody could appear for w orkmen as their representative, who is the Secretary of the union, recorded a wr ong date i.e. 09.07.2001 instead of 04.07.2001. The said prayer has been objecte d to by the management by filing objection contending inter alia that there is n o ground for setting aside the award and giving further opportunity to the workm en concerned to adduce evidence. To substantiate the plea in the aforesaid miscellaneous application, the workmen examined 2(two) witnesses, namely, one of the concerned workman as PW-1 and the Secretary of the union as PW-2. Those witnesses were duly cross-examine d by the management. No witness was examined by the management in the said misce llaneous proceeding. The learned Presiding Officer thereafter vide order dated 0 6.11.2001 has rejected the petition by holding that no cause, not even to speak off the good cause justifying their absence on 21.06.2001 could be demonstrated by the union. It appears from the said order dated 06.11.2001 that PW-1 i.e. one of th e concerned workman has made a categorical statement that on 21.06.2001 he came to the Court and could reach the Court at 12.30 P.M. but did not find anybody fr om his side. The said version of the witness has not been disbelieved by the lea rned Labour Court. It is true that the PW-2 was negligent in not attending the C ourt on 21.06.2001 and also in not taking any steps though he knew about the dat e fixed and instead he has left for Guwahati without any instruction to anyone, though the primary duty of the union is to protect the interest of the workmen. For the negligence of the workman’s representative i.e. the Secretary of the uni on, the concerned workmen, who are illiterate tea garden labourers, should not b e made to suffer, more so when the concerned workmen were dismissed from service . The said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court while passing the order dated 06.11.2001 rejecting the application filed by the union, which has been registered and numbered as Mi sc. Case No.1/2001. That being the position, the order dated 06.11.2001 as well as the award dated 05.07.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer are set aside. The mat ter is remitted to the Labour Court to afford the concerned workmen a further op portunity to adduce evidence. It is also open to the management to file appropri ate application, if so advised, to allow them to adduce additional evidence to b ring the subsequent event on record. The learned Presiding Officer thereafter sh all pass a fresh award. The parties are directed to appear before the learned La bour Court on 11.07.2011 for taking necessary order from the said Court. As the reference was made in the year 1997, the learned Presiding Officer shall make al l endeavour to decide the proceeding within 4(four) months from the date of appe arance of the parties as fixed by this Court. It is needless to say that the Lab our Court shall proceed from the stage of recording the evidence of the workmen. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, as indicated above. No costs. The Registry is directed to send back the records, so as to reach the Re gistry of the Labour Court on or before 27.06.2011. This order be brought to the notice of the Deputy Registrar (Bench) forthwith.