JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this writ petition petitioner has challenged the Award of Labour Court dated 8.2.1996.
2. Brief facts are that two Workmen Abdul Qayum and Naeem were working with the petitioner as machine man and ink man respectively on monthly wages Rs. 750/- and Rs. 300/- per month respectively. Both lodged claim with Labour Commissioner about non payment of wages as per Minimum Wages Act. They also raised demand for other legal facilities. It is alleged that the petitioner instead of giving the facilities as per different labour laws and wages as per Minimum Wages Act, terminated the services of both the Workmen on 8.8.1984 without giving any reason or charge sheet or holding an inquiry. Workmen raised industrial dispute and reference was made to the Labour Court to the following effect:
Whether the services of S/Shri Abdul Qayum and Naeem have been terminated illegally and/ or unjustifiable if so to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect.
3. The management filed written statement and assailed the claims of the Workmen saying that the Workmen had abandoned the job and failed to report for duty after 7.8.1984 despite having called upon to do so repeatedly. It was further stated that Abdul Qayum was not interested to work. He had taken a sum of Rs. 2000/- as advance and paid back only Rs. 300/- by way of adjustment from the salary and in order to avoid adjustment he left the services and he also took Naeem with him who was his nephew. Both of them deliberately remained absent from duty since July 1984 onwards and despite management’s asking to re-join the duty they did not re-join the duty. In the written statement management offered that Workmen could still join. In the rejoinder Workmen denied the averments made by the management and reiterated Workmens(tm) claim. Labour Court framed additional issues which reads as under:
1. Whether the workman abandoned the service in August, 1984 despite being called to report for duty, if so, its effect.
4. Management after filing written statement did not join the proceedings and the testimony of the Workmen went unrebutted. On the basis of the testimony of the Workmen Labour Court passed an Award holding that the services of the Workmen were terminated in contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act ( for short the Act(tm) ) and amounted to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Act. Workmen was therefore entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service.
5. The Award was passed on 08.02.1996 and management made an application for setting aside of the Award. By order dated 19.7.1996, the application of the management was dismissed by Labour Court making following observation:
Learned AR for the management does not dispute non appearance since 29.8.90 but submitted that the management was only ex parte on 28.2.95. A formal order to proceed ex parte against the management 28.2.95 cannot furnish grounds for non appearance by the management since 29.8.90. There is no sufficient explanation in the application for remaining absent by the management since 29.8.90 and till they received the award from the appropriate government. Only ground taken for non appearance since 29.8.90 is that they were told that the case has been adjourned and the next date will be informed through summons. Since they did not receive any summons from the court and kept on waiting for the summons, they did not appear. Admittedly no inquiry was made by the inspection of the case file for about five years. The ground taken is also not supported by order dated 29.8.90. If such grounds are accepted, there will be no end of litigation. The application is a devise to defeat and delay the cause of justice to the extent possible as the litigants like management in the present case. It seems that application is an attempt to prolong the fruit of justice delivered to the claimant/workman by way of award dated 8.2.96.
The application is dismissed as devoid of any sufficient grounds and merits.
6. In the writ petition the petitioner has taken the ground that management received ex parte Award from the Secretary Labour, Delhi Administration on 14.6.1996, and immediately thereafter on the opening of the Court an application for setting aside ex parte Award was made which was dismissed by the Labour Court on 19.7.96. It is further submitted that on 22.5.1995, the Judge was not having powers of Labour Court but he fixed the case for ex-parte arguments after taking evidence of workman by way of affidavit on record. The Presiding Officer could not have passed this order in absence of power of a Labour Court, therefore, the award was vitiated for want of jurisdiction and was null and void.
7. As per records petitioner had not appeared in the Court since August 1990. The Labour Court continued to adjourn the case from August 1990 onwards till 28.2.1995. It is only on 28.2.1995, when again none appeared for petitioner, the Labour Court proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and following order was passed:
28.2.95
Pt. Workman. Seeks time up to 2 p.m. As representative is not available. Put up at 2 p.m.
2 p.m.
Pt. As before. Adjournment sought. None on behalf of management. The case is proceeded ex-parte. Put up for WE 22.5.95
8. On 28.2.1995 the case was posted for ex-parte Workman’s evidence on 22.5.1995. However, on 22.5.1995 initial order of the appointment of Labour Court had lapsed. Petitioner did not appear. The workman placed his affidavit of evidence on record and the Presiding Officer fixed the case for argument for 15.1.1996.
9. It is argued that conducting proceedings on 22.5.95 and fixing the case for ex parte argument was beyond the power of the Presiding Officer. Therefore, the entire proceedings and the award got vitiated and was liable to be set aside.
10. It is evident from the order sheet that on 22.5.1995 the judge had no power of Labour Court and for that reason only he practically did no judicial work. It is normal feature of a Court that if Presiding Officer is on leave due to some reason, parties file documents with the Reader or other ministerial staff, which are considered by the Presiding Officer when he comes from leave or when he takes up the matter again. In this case judge had not been granted powers of a Labour Court on 22.5.1995. When he did not had powers, he simply acted as a ministerial officer and placed the affidavit given by the Workman on record. Since the management was already ex parte vide order dated 28.2.1995, he fixed the case for for ex parte argument on 15.1.1996. Even if he had not fixed case for ex-parte arguments, since the management was ex parte, on next date 15.1.1996 he could otherwise hear the arguments ex-parte and dispose of the matter. Presiding Officer was very much having powers of Labour Court when the arguments were heard and Award was passed by him. Merely because on one date i.e. 22.5.1995, Presiding Officer was not having power when practically no judicial work was done, the entire proceeding & award does not become null and void. I consider that merely on this technical ground that Presiding Officer was not having power of one day, Award cannot be set aside. This Court cannot act in a hyper technical manner and put premium on the deliberate non appearance of petitioner in the Court. A party who has not appeared in the Court after filing written statement from August 1990 onwards till passing of the Award in 1996 cannot get the Award set aside on flimsy technical grounds. It was obligatory on the management to attend the hearing and co-operate before the Labour Court, so that the case could be decided early. The entire object of enactment of Industrial Disputes Act and other Labour Laws was that the Workman should get quick justice. The Labour Court cannot work like main stream civil courts and keep on giving adjournments. Long delay in deciding labour matters frustrates the entire legislative scheme of justice for workmen. Every Tribunal and Court subordinate to High Court has same dignity and honour as the High Court and the Tribunals & subordinate Courts cannot be treated in contempt by non appearance and frustrating the justice delivery system to deliver justice in time and then get the ex-parte order set aside on one or the other ground.
11. I find no infirmity in the Award. I also find that the application of the applicant/ petitioner for setting aside ex-parte award was rightly rejected. Writ petition is hereby dismissed.