THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W. P. Nos. 10191 of 2005 & 2921 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions arise between the same parties, and in relation to the same subject matter. The petitioner is common. The employee, by name G. Pentaiah, ﬁgures as respondent No.2 in both the writ petitions. For the sake of convenience, he is referred to as the respondent. The respondent was employed with the petitioner industry. The petitioner introduced the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, in the year 1995. The respondent submitted an application under that scheme, and it is stated that the application was accepted in the year 1997. The petitioner became a sick industry, in the year 1999, even before the VRS beneﬁts were extended to the respondent. It is stated that in the proceedings before BIFR, the revival of the unit is ruled out and the winding up was suggested. The matter is said to be pending before the AAIFR. The respondent ﬁled M.P.No.54 of 2002, before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short “the Act”), for recovery of the amount payable under the VRS, Leave Encashment, Bonus, etc. The Labour Court passed an order, dated 1.4.2003, allowing the claim. Stating that the order in M.P.No.54 of 2002 is not implemented, the respondent ﬁled E.P.No.12 of 2007, under Section 11-B of the Act. The Labour Court passed an order dated 21.1.2008, directing attachment of the furniture and other articles, in the house of the Managing Director. W.P.No.10191 of 2005 is ﬁled against the order in M.P.No.54 of 2002 and W.P.No.2921 of 2008 is ﬁled against the order in E.P.No.12 of 2007. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.H.R. Chowdary, learned counsel for the respondent, and learned Government Pleader for Labour. The respondent moved the Labour Court, under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, for recovery of amount, under diﬀerent heads. It was not even his case that there was any adjudication of the claim by any forum, earlier thereto. Even assuming that the petitioner did not respond to the notice, the Labour Court was under obligation to examine the claim, with reference to oral and documentary evidence. It has simply taken note of the contents of the petition and has just ordered the same, on the sole ground that the petitioner was set ex parte. Such a course is impermissible in law. The Labour Court ought to have taken into account, the fact that the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Act partake the character of execution proceedings, and veriﬁcation of the various amounts with reference to relevant provisions or orders, was mandatory. Neither any oral evidence, nor any documentary evidence was adduced by the respondent herein, before the Labour Court. It is well settled principle of law that even where a defendant in a suit remains ex parte, the trial court is not relieved of its obligation, to adjudicate the claim. The absence of a party would, at the most, take away the opposition to the claim made by one of the parties. All the same, the court has to satisfy itself about the legality of the claim, without even reference to any resistance by the opposite party. On this ground, the order in M.P.No.54 of 2002 is liable to be set aside. Inasmuch as E.P.No.12 of 2007 was ﬁled for implementation of the order in M.P.No.54 of 2002, the order passed in the E.P. is also liable to be set aside. Both the writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. M.P.No.54 of 2002 is remanded to the Labour Court, for fresh consideration and disposal, and the parties shall proceed with the matter, without waiting for any fresh notice. The Labour Court shall endeavour to dispose of the matter, within a period of three months, from the date of commencement of the proceedings before it, and it shall post the matter for appearance of the parties on 15.9.2008. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ 21st August 2008 Note: L.R. copies to be marked. (B/o) PAN