IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 OP.No. 13677 of 2002(C) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MONY AMMA, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLANA P.O., THRIOKKUNNAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. N.RAVEENDRAN, PROPRIETOR, S.N.R. PEELING SHED, PALLANA P.O., KAYAMKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, MERCANTILE WORKERS UNION, REG.NO.447/75 (INTUC), KALLUMOOD, KAYAMKULAM. 3. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON R3 AND R4 BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2008, ALONG WITH OP NO. 28380 OF 2000 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 22977 OF 2002 IN OP 13677 OF 2002 DISMISSED 19.6.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF CMP NO.99 OF 1996 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.D.NO. 76 OF 1994 BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF CMP NO.100 OF 1996 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.D.NO.76 OF 1994 BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 27.4.1998IN CMP NOS. 99 OF 1996 AND 100 OF 1996 IN I.D.NO. 76 OF 1994 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.D.NO.76 OF 1994 BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN I.D.NO.76 OF 1994 BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF WARD DATED 13.7.1995 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN I.D.NO.76 OF 1994 PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE DATED 26.3.1996 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 13677/02 & 28380/2000 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT These two connected cases pertain to the same issue and they are disposed of by common judgment. 2. Industrial dispute was referred by the Government for considering the claim of the petitioner in OP 13677 of 2002 about the denial of employment to her by the management. Admittedly workman was represented by Union secretary who did not represent the matter when the case was posted before the Labour Court. Labour Court therefore declared the Union exparte and passed the award holding that Union has abandoned the claim of the petitioner. However, later when application for setting aside the exparte-award was made, the Labour Court allowed the same. The management has filed O.P.No. 28380 of 2000 challenging the order setting aside the exparte award on the ground of delay and want of jurisdiction. Since the award is published under Section 17A of the ID Act there is no scope for entertaining application for setting aside the exparte award filed nearly after one 2 year of the passing of the award, is the case of the management. Therefore the Labour Court's order in setting aside the exparte award is not tenable, is their case. However, since the workman challenged the exparte award itself, wherein she has stated that on account of death of Union Secretary, the matter could not be represented and she came to know about it much later, I find that the claim of the workman is quite genuine because if a representative died, consequently the case could not be represented and if she was not aware of the same, she should not be made to suffer the consequences. O.Ps. are therefore disposed of vacating the order of the Labour Court setting aside the exparte aware and also vacating the exparte award and restoring the ID to the file of the Labour Court, Kollam, with direction to the Labour court to dispose of the I.D. without any delay after issuing notice to the parties. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3