Skip to content


Sarojini (R.) Vs. Lakshmana Rao (B.) and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1969)ILLJ9AP
AppellantSarojini (R.)
RespondentLakshmana Rao (B.) and anr.
Excerpt:
.....provisions of the act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. in view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. sections 4 & 3: [v.v.s. rao, n.v. ramana & p.s. narayana, jj] declaration of notified area held, it is only under section 3 that government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. it is very conspicuous that section 4 does not..........1 is entitled to a sum of rs. 1,820. the petitioner then filed an application under order ix, civil procedure code, for setting aside the ex parts order granting the certificate to respondent 1 on the ground that the petitioner had no notice of the application made by the workman. this application was allowed on terms. the petition was restored as the petitioner had paid rs. 50 towards costs of respondent 1, an objection was taken at the time of the hearing of the application before the presiding officer that he had no jurisdiction to restore the application on the ground that order ix, rule 13, civil procedure code, is not applicable to cases under the industrial disputes act, before the labour court. the labour court upheld the objection following the view taken by the labour.....
Judgment:

Obul Reddi, J.

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the presiding officer, labour court, Guntur, dated 27 November 1963, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 76 of 1963, allowing the claim of respondent 1 (workman) for back-wages for the period from 1 June 1961 to 30 September 1963, The petitioner is the proprietor, Ramakrishna Bus Service, and respondent 1 was a conductor in the transport service of the petitioner. Respondent 1 was dismissed on 27 October 1959, and an industrial dispute was raised and the matter was referred to the labour court, Guntur, and the labour court passed an award on 5 August 1961, reinstating the worker on the ground that the management of the petitioner's bus service did not permit the worker to join service or discharge his duties as a conductor. Pursuant to the award of the labour court, respondent 1 filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 64(2) of the rules made thereunder claiming back-wages. The labour court granted a certificate to the effect that the worker was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,274. Subsequent to this, respondent 1 filed another application on 2 October 1963 (Miscellaneous Petition No. 760 of 1963) claiming back-wages of Rs. 2,820 for the period 1 June 1961 to 30 September 1963. The presiding officer, labour court, passed an order, dated 27 November 1963, granting certificate to the effect that respondent 1 is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,820. The petitioner then filed an application under order IX, Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside the ex parts order granting the certificate to respondent 1 on the ground that the petitioner had no notice of the application made by the workman. This application was allowed on terms. The petition was restored as the petitioner had paid Rs. 50 towards costs of respondent 1, An objection was taken at the time of the hearing of the application before the presiding officer that he had no jurisdiction to restore the application on the ground that order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, is not applicable to cases under the Industrial Disputes Act, before the labour court. The labour court upheld the objection following the view taken by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Malayalam Plantations, Ltd. v. Ponnuswami 1956-I L.L.J. 69 and held that the order made by it earlier restoring thepetition, was without jurisdiction, thus maintaining the Court's earlier order granting certificate to the workman. It is against this order that this petition has been filed challenging its correctness.

2. The only question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, in so far as they relate to the restoration of petitions filed under the Industrial Disputes Act, are applicable. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for respondent 1 that a notice was issued regarding the application filed by respondent 1 claiming back-wages for the period in question and the petitioner had refused to take notice, with the result that the labour court had no option but to grant a certificate determining the back-wages payable as Rs. 1,820. The application under order IX, Rule 13, was made by the petitioner stating that he had no notice of the application and the labour court was under the impression that the petitioner had no notice of the application made and hence restored it on terms. On a perusal of the record, it would appear that the petitioner had notice of the application and, therefore, his refusal to take notice should make no difference. There is nothing in the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder which enables the labour court to apply the provisions of order IX, Civil Procedure Code. Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules only enables labour courts or tribunals to exercise the powers under the Civil Procedure Code, in respect of

(a) discovery and inspection ;

(b) granting adjournments; and

(c) reception of evidence taken on affidavit.

Other provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable except in so far as they relate to matters specifically mentioned in the Act or rules. Regarding the scope of the powers vested in the industrial tribunal or labour court, the Labour Appellate Tribunal held in Malayalam Plantations case 1956-I L.L.J. 69 (vide supra) that in the absence of a rule similar to Rule 21 (8) of the Industrial Disputes (Madras) Rules an industrial tribunal has no powers to set aside an ex parte order and that power cannot be implied. There is nothing in Rule 26 of the rules to suggest that any such power to restore an ex parte order under order IX is vested in an industrial tribunal or labour court.

3. Therefore, I am unable to interfere with the impugned order made by the presiding officer of the labour court. The writ petition is dismissed with costs which are fixed. at Rs. 50.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //