IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.06.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN W.P.No.28002 of 2006 & M.P.No.2 of 2006 The Management of Venkateswara Electricals P. Ltd. Chennai 600 116. ... Petitioner .Vs. 1. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai 600 104. 2.Handloom and General Workers Union, 10/5, Kasthuribai Street, Thriumazhisai, Chennai 602 107. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in I.D.No.671 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai – 104, the first respondent herein and quash the award dated 17.12.2004 passed therein and further to direct the first respondent to restore I.D.No.671 of 2003 to file and dispose of the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Raghavan For Respondents-2 : Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu O R D E R The present writ petition was filed seeking an order to call for the records in I.D.No.671 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai – 104, the first respondent herein, quash the award dated 17.12.2004 passed therein and also to direct the first respondent to restore I.D.No.671 of 2003 to file and dispose of the same. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.Challenging the order dated 17.12.2004, passed in I.D.No.671 of 2003, on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai the petitioner/management has preferred this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4.Mr.M.R.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is not legally sustainable. In support of this contention learned counsel also relied on the decision reported in 1997(1)LLJ 923. In the affidavit, the petitioner has specifically stated that the materials placed before the Labour Court was not considered and the award was passed mechanically without due application of mind. In the impugned award dated 12.12.2004 though ten questions were framed by the labour court, the court has not answered all the points for determination. W.W.1 was examined on the side of the workman, no one was examined on the side of the management. Exs.W1 to W5 were marked and the petition was allowed. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in paragraph No.3 of the award, the labour court has held as follows: "Today the dispute is taken up for enquiry. The respondent was already called absent and set ex-parte. W.W.1 is examined in chief and Exs.W1 to W5 are marked. Perused the evidence and the award is passed holding that the demand for service weightage is justified and the respondents directed to pay a sum of Rs.150/-per month per year of service to all workmen taking into account of date of appointment of each worker and the arrears from the date of realising the demand by the union, the demand for yearly increment for the years 2002 and 2003 is justified and the respondent is directed to pay annual increment at the rate of Rs.150/- per month from 01.04.2002 to all the workman, the demand for payment of travelling allowance is justified and the respondent is directed to pay travelling allowance to all workmen at the rate of Rs.500/- per month, the demand for ten days casual leave per year is justified and the respondent is directed to grant ten days casual leave every year to all workmen, the demand for night shift allowance is justified and the respondent is directed to pay night shift allowance at Rs.15/- per day of work when the worker perform night duty, the demand for supply of 3 sets of uniform with stitching charges every year in the month of January every year to all workmen, the demand for supply of two pairs of batta shoe every years is justified and the respondent is directed to supply two pairs of batta shoes every year to all workmen, the demand for supply of 3 Hamam bath soap every month is justified and the respondent is directed to supply 3 Hamam Bath Soap every month https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to all workmen, the demand for payment of washing allowance of Rs.50/- every month to all workmen is justified and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.50/- every month as washing allowance to all workmen and the demand for payment of House rent allowance to workmen is justified and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.500/- per month as house rent allowance to all workmen." It is seen that there is no discussion based on the evidence available on record by the court below for granting the reliefs, sought for and the questions framed by the court below were not answered. 5.A Division bench of this Court in a similar case in Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras vs. The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Madras and another reported in 1997 (1) LLJ 923 at page No.110 has held as follows: "Today (February 28, 1994), the dispute is taken up for enquiry. The respondent was already called absent and set exparte. W.W.1 is examined. Exs.W1 to W4 are marked. The claim is proved. Hence, an award is passed directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits with costs of Rs.100/-. Thus, from the aforesaid award, it is clear that the Labour Court has not considered the evidence on record. Even though the appellant remained absent, nevertheless, there was evidence on record. There were the statements of the case pleaded by the petitioner and the respondent. The Labour Court was required to consider and give reasons for passing the award in favour of the second respondent workman. As no such reason is given, not even the facts of the case are stated, the award cannot at all be considered to be a speaking order, as such it cannot be sustained. The Presiding Officer is an Officer of the District Judge grade. He should not have decided the dispute in such a manner. There is no judicial application of mind of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. Such exercise of jurisdiction causes great and incalculable damage to the parties and also to the administration of justice. The Presiding Officer would do better, if he discontinues such a habit of disposal of cases." 6.Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of view that the case on hand and the decision cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are identical in nature though it is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ an ex-parte order under challenge, the court below could have decided the points for consideration on merits based on the evidence available on record. As the order has not been passed on merits, I find it just and reasonable in the light of the decision referred to above, to allow this writ petition and set aside the order however, on reasonable terms as there was no fault on the part of the second respondent for the ex-parte order. While, allowing the aforesaid writ appeal, this Court directed the respondent/management to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards the costs. 7.It is a well settled preposition of law that an ex-parte order is also an enforceable order, until the same is set aside by the same court or any competent forum. However, when it is not a speaking order and findings are not given for the questions or issues framed, based on the evidence available on record, to meet the ends of justice, the ex-parte order has to be set aside on reasonable terms. 8.In the instant case, according to the second respondent there were 31 employees working, but learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that only 18 employees are continuing their service as on today. It is not in dispute that the impugned order was passed in the year 2004. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, I find it just and reasonable to direct the petitioner/management to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to each one of the worker continuing their service under the petitioner and accordingly totally a sum of Rs.18,000/- has to be paid to the second respondent union within a period of three weeks. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the labour union of the second respondent herein. On the aforesaid terms and condition, these writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. On compliance, the Court below is directed to restore the I.D.No.671 of 2003 to file and dispose it on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the conditional order is not complied with by the writ petitioner, this petition will be dismissed without any further reference to this Court and the second respondent would be at liberty to proceed within impugned order according to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to cost. Smi Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai 600 104. Copy to: The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.104. + 1 cc to Mr. S.T. Varadarajulu, Advocate SR No.43316 + 1 cc to Mr. M.R.Raghavan, Advocate SR No.42502 KJI(CO) SR/21.6.2010 W.P.No.28002 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/