JUDGMENT
1. This contempt case has been filed by the writ petitioner – Company against the respondent herein on the ground of alleged wilful and intentional disobedience of the order of this Court passed on 26th May 1987 in W.P.M.P. No. 8625/87 In W.P. No. 6489/87.
2. There was dispute between the writ petitioner – Company and one of its workmen Sri P. Venugopalarao, who has since died. The dispute between the parties is the subject-matter in M.P. Nos. 159, 166, 169, 174 and 183 of 1986 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. While disposing of the said petition, by order dated 1st May 1987 the said Tribunal passed an order which was described as “short communication order”, the effect of which was that the petitioner-Company became liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2.91 lakhs. It is the case of the petitioner that no reasoned judgment was prepared or pronounced in open Court on that date, thereby precluding the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in law. The petitioners were compelled to file in this Court W.P. No. 6489/87 for quashing the said “short communication order” even without knowing the grounds upon which they could question the said order which was bereft of any reasons. In fact in W.P.M.P. No. 8625/87 in W.P. No. 6489/87 filed by the petitioner for quashing the “short communication order”, I directed by my orders, dated 26th May 1987 the said Tribunal to furnish a reasoned order to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of my order. Inspite of the direction, the petitioner states that the respondent failed to furnish a copy of the reasoned order and the present contempt has been filed. According to the petitioner, the respondent prepared an order long subsequent to 1st May 1987 and ante-dated the same as on 1st May 1987 even though on the date of the “short communication order”, the respondent had neither prepared a reasoned judgment nor had dictated such judgment to the Stenographer. It is the grievance of the petitioner-Company that in view of this anomalous position, the workman was able to recover the entire amount of Rs. 2.91 lakhs before the petitioner could challenge the same. In view of the allegations of personal nature made against the respondent, I had called for the remarks of the said officer in the contempt case. Pursuant thereto, the officer who has since retired, has filed a sworn affidavit mentioning the various facts.
3. In view of the fact that the workman has since died and the respondent-judicial officer has also since retired, I have thought it not desirable to go into the personal allegations that have been made in the present contempt petition against the respondent. I have requested the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare to assist me in the case for the purpose of finding out whether there is any provision of law under which the Tribunal-cum Labour Court could have passed a “short communication order” without reasons. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has contended that there is no provision for passing of a “short communication order” without giving reasons. According to him even if there is such a practice, it has to be put to an end in the interests of proper and effective administration of justice.
4. In my view, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court does not have any power whatsoever to pass a “short communication order” without reasons. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader have frankly stated that they have not been able to lay their hands on any rule which permits the passing of such an order. According to the counter-affidavit of the respondent, there has been such a practice of passing “short communication orders”. In my view even if there is such a practice, it is not a good practice and has to be done away with immediately. Such an order if permitted to be passed without giving reasons, would disable the aggrieved party to file an effective appeal or an effective writ petition and cause serious prejudice.
5. With these remarks the Contempt Case is closed. No costs.