IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 986 of 2007. Decided on: 18.8.2008. M/s Mohan Meakin Limited. … … … Petitioner. Versus President, Mohan Meakins Staff Union and others. … … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For Respondent No.2: Mr. C. N. Singh, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that the State Government has made the following reference No.390/2002 to the Labour Court, Shimla:- “Whether the demand raised by the President, Mohan Meakin Staff Union, registered No.808, Solan Brewery, District Solan through their demand notices dated 21.8.2002 and 3.9.2002 (copies enclosed) from the Management of M/S Mohan Meakin Brewery, Solan, Distt. Solan, H.P. are proper Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - and justified? If yes, what relief the workers concerned are entitled to?” The Labour Court passed the interim order on 24th August, 2005 in application under Section 10(4) read with Section 2(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the brevity sake). It appears from the pleadings of the parties that during the pendency of the reference, the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the Union for convenience sake) had preferred an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act for the recovery of payment, i.e. back wages, retiral benefits, leave encashment and other consequential payments arising out of the order dated 24.8.2005 passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Management) had filed reply to the application preferred under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Presiding Judge, Labour Court, Shimla on 15.11.2006 passed the following order:- “Case called in the pre and post lunch sessions, but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the case. Accordingly, the present reference is replied against the petitioner. Let a copy of this order be sent to the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette.” The Union preferred an application for setting aside the order dated 15.11.2006 and for restoration of reference No.390/2002. The Management filed the reply to this application. The application bearing No.75 of 2005 was allowed by the Presiding Judge, Labour Court, Shimla on 22.5.2007 and the order dated 15.11.2006 was set aside and the reference was restored. The Management has challenged this order dated 22.5.2007. - 3 - Mr. K.D. Sood had strenuously argued that the order dated 22.5.2007 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. C.N. Singh has supported the order dated 22.5.2007. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. What emerges from the above stated facts is that the appropriate government has made reference to the Labour Court, Shimla. The Labour Court has passed an interim award on 24.8.2005. The Union has filed an application under Section 33-C(2) for the implementation of the interim award dated 24.8.2005. The Management has filed reply to the application preferred by the Union under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Presiding Judge, Labour Court has not passed any order in the application preferred by the Union under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Presiding Judge, Labour Court on 15.11.2006 replied the reference against the Union. The Union, as noticed above, moved the application bearing No.75/2005 for setting the order dated 15.11.2006. It was primarily contended in the application for restoration that the Union was not informed by the learned A.R. who was representing their case before the Labour Court. The Management has contested the application on the ground that Mr. H.R. Sharma was not competent to appear as per order dated 5.6.2006. The learned Presiding Judge of the Labour Court, Shimla has allowed the application on 22.5.2007 by a speaking order. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the order dated 22.5.2007 and the same is accordingly up- held. Having said so, the Court is of the opinion that the proceedings before the Labour Court should culminate as expeditiously as - 4 - reasonably practicable. The learned counsel for the parties have jointly stated that the Labour Court may be directed to decide the reference No.390 of 2002 expeditiously and all the applications pending before the Labour Court be also decided at the earliest. Accordingly, the following directions are issued to the Presiding Judge, Labour Court, Shimla:- 1. The Labour Court, Shimla shall decide the reference No.390 of 2002 within a period of six months from the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment; 2. The Labour Court, Shimla shall decide all the applications pending before it including the application under Section 33- C(2) of the Act filed by the Union; and 3. The Labour Court Shimla shall pass appropriate orders in application preferred under Section 33-C(2) of the Act within a period of three months from today. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. August 18, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.