JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 17.4.2003 with a prayer for quashing the order and directing the cross examination of the witnesses of the workman to be allowed by the management.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the Labour Court vide its order dated 8.8.2002, dismissed the application of the petitioner for setting aside ex parte order dated 9.11.2000 and also dismissed the application under Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C.
3. From the order of the Tribunal, it appears that after management was proceeded ex-parte on 9.11.2000, the case was fixed for remaining evidence of workman. On 12.4.2001 copy of affidavit of witness was given to management and the case was fixed for cross examination of witnesses of the workman on 18.9.2001. None appeared for the management on 18.9.2001 as well, and the management was proceeded ex parte thereafter the case was fixed for final arguments. Management made an application for setting aside order dated 9.11.2000. On 8.8.2002, date fixed for disposal of application, management did not appear and Tribunal dismissed the application.
4. On 25.9.2002, the management filed an application for review of the order dated 8.8.2002 which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 17.4.2003. It is submitted by the petitioner that after framing of issues, the case was fixed for evidence and the workmen filed their affidavits on 9.11.2000. Authorized representative of the management was absent and the management was proceeded ex parte. The case was adjourned to 15.2.2001, on which date, the presiding officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 12.4.2001. On 12.4.2001, AR of both the parties were present and only one affidavit on behalf of the workmen was filed. The case was adjourned to 18th September, 2001 for remaining evidence of the workman. On 18th September, 2001, no affidavit was filed on behalf of the workman. The presence of AR of the management was recorded at 12.30 pm on that date. The case was adjourned to 12.2.2002. On 12.2.2002, presiding officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 29.4.2002. In the meantime, the management filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of C.P.C. and under Order 9 Rule 7 and 151 of C.P.C., seeking leave to cross examine the witnesses of the workmen. Notice of the same was issued for the date already fixed i.e. 29.4.2002. On 29.4.2002, AR of both parties were present and presiding officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 30.5.2002. On 30.5.2002, presiding officer was present and case was ordered to be posted for 2nd July, 2002 when the AR of the management was present. On 15.7.2002, the workman was supplied copy of the application of the management and case was adjourned for reply and arguments on 24.7.2002. On 24.7.2002, presiding officer was on leave, though AR of both the parties were present and the case was adjourned to 8.8.2002. On 8.8.2002, none appeared on behalf of management and the applications were decided by the Labour Court, rejecting the prayer and the case was adjourned for final arguments. The management moved an application seeking review of the order dated 8.8.2002.
5. It is argued by the petitioner that the learned presiding officer should have confined himself to the averments made in respect of absence of management on 9.11.2000 alone and should have decided the application, taking into consideration the averments made in that behalf. The Labour Court, however, scrutinized the previous orders, which were not relevant. Even if the management had been proceeded ex parte on 9.11.2000, the order was valid only for that date and the management could join the proceedings at any subsequent dates but the management had been denied the right to participate in proceedings and to cross examine the witnesses. The presiding officer fell in grave error in rejecting the prayer of the management to cross examine the witnesses.
6. It is submitted that on 8.8.2002, when the application of the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 and under Order 9 Rule 7 were fixed, the counsel could not appear because he had noted down the date in his diary as 9.8.2000 instead of 8.8.2000. The Labour Court should have accepted this contention which was supported by an affidavit of counsel of management and there was no counter to it. It is submitted that the review application has been dismissed by the Labour Court observing that the order dated 8.8.2002 has been passed on merits and, therefore, cannot be reviewed. The Labour Court fell in grave error in making such an observation as no order had been passed on merits.
7. In the counter affidavit, it is submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable and same has been filed with ulterior motive to harass the respondent. The Labour Court had given enough opportunities to the management to cross examine the workmen, who had filed their affidavits and the case was posted on 9th October, 1998 but the petitioner management failed to cross examine the respondent, so recalling the witnesses of the respondent, would amounts to injustice against the workmen. Law does not help those who sleep over the matter. It is submitted that management has been intentionally and deliberately not appearing before the Labour Court and had failed to cross examine the witnesses and tried to delay the case.
8. It is evident from the averments that the industrial dispute was pending before the Labour Court since 1994 as ID No. 116/1994. As per the Industrial Disputes Act, the endeavor of the Labour Court should be to dispose of an industrial dispute within a period of six months. However, experience shows that mandate of this provision of the Industrial Disputes Act is a distant dream. The present system is suffering from chronic disease of adjournments. Serious thoughts need to be given how to make this system run efficiently so as to dispense real justice in short time. A workman, who has to fight a case for years and years together before the Labour Court, cannot feel consoled. Sometimes, the Labour Courts are not appointed for long, sometimes the presiding officers are on leave, sometimes the AR of the parties are not available. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, meant for early disposal of the cases, have been rendered redundant resulting into gross injustice to the affected parties.
9. The contention of the petitioner that while disposing of the application, learned Labour Court should not have looked into the previous history of appearance before the Labour Court is baseless. I consider that whenever an application for setting aside an ex parte order is made, giving one or the other ground, the Labour Court is supposed to look into the bonafide of the reasons and the past conduct of the party to see as to what has been the previous appearance of the parties. Past conduct of petitioner before Labour Court shows gross negligence and effort to protract the case. The conduct of management in this case has not been above board. There seems to be deliberate non-appearance/late appearance on material dates. However, the proceedings before Labour Court have remained stayed for more than three years due to this petition. The interest of justice shall be served if heavy cost is imposed on petitioner for non appearance before the Labour Court on effective date.
10. I allow this writ petition subject to cost of Rs.3000/- payable by the petitioner to each respondent. The order of the Labour Court is set aside subject to payment of above cost on 5th October, 2006 before the Labour Court. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 5th October, 2006 and the Tribunal shall make endeavor to conclude the adjudication within a period of three months after appearance of the parties. No adjournment shall be sought by either side, on any ground. If cost is not paid @ Rs. 3000/- to each workman Tribunal shall proceed further in accordance with law as if this writ petition has been dismissed.