Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Labour Court’s Ex-Parte Award: “Non-Compliance with Rule 18 of Industrial Disputes Rules and Insufficient Evidence Warrants Fresh Trial”

Court’s Decision

The Gauhati High Court overturned the Labour Court’s ex-parte award dated 31.12.2014, which had ruled in favor of the respondent. The court held that:

1. The Labour Court did not comply with Rule 18 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 regarding proper service of notice.
2. The evidence relied upon (Ext. 1) was insufficient to prove that the respondent was a workman employed by the petitioner.
   The case was remanded to the Labour Court for a de-novo trial with an opportunity for the petitioner to participate.

Facts

1. The petitioner, a company operating in Assam, challenged an ex-parte award passed by the Labour Court in Reference Case No. 2/2014. The award directed the petitioner to compensate the respondent, who claimed to be a terminated workman.
2. The petitioner alleged that it was not served proper notice before the case was decided ex-parte. The Labour Court also rejected the petitioner’s application to set aside the ex-parte award in Misc. Case No. 1/2015.
3. The respondent relied on Ext. 1 (a money receipt) as evidence of his employment with the petitioner. The petitioner disputed this, stating that the document was unrelated to the respondent’s employment.

Issues

1. Did the Labour Court act correctly in proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner without confirming proper service of notice?
2. Was Ext. 1 sufficient to establish that the respondent was a workman employed by the petitioner?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Service of Notice:
   • The Labour Court violated Rule 18 of the 1957 Rules by not ensuring valid service of notice. No service report was filed by the Process Server, and no evidence was presented to prove service or refusal of notice by the petitioner.
   • The seals on the notice did not confirm receipt by the petitioner or its authorized representative.
2. Ex-Parte Proceedings:
   • The Labour Court proceeded ex-parte prematurely, without verifying whether notice had been served or rejected as required under the Rules.
3. Evidence:
   • Ext. 1, the money receipt, was misinterpreted. It was a receipt issued by the petitioner for money received from a third party (M/s HPC/CPM Panchgram), not evidence of payment to the respondent as a workman.
   • There was no independent evidence to prove the respondent was a workman employed by the petitioner or that his service was terminated by the petitioner.
4. Procedural Violation:
   • The respondent submitted his statement of claim after the Labour Court ordered ex-parte proceedings, violating Rule 10B of the 1957 Rules, which mandates that the statement of claim must be filed before the other party submits their written statement.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Service of Notice:
   • The respondent argued that notice was served on the petitioner through a special messenger. Rule 18 of the 1957 Rules does not explicitly require a service report, and the Labour Court was justified in proceeding ex-parte.
2. Evidence of Employment:
   • Ext. 1 was presented as proof of the respondent’s employment relationship with the petitioner, as the respondent had received the money on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Ex-Parte Justification:
   • The petitioner’s absence justified the Labour Court’s decision to proceed ex-parte. Rule 10B of the 1957 Rules was irrelevant in this context as it assumes the presence of both parties.

Analysis of the Law

1. Rule 18 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957:
   • This rule requires proper service of notice either personally or via registered post, with specific provisions for refusal to accept notice.
   • The Labour Court failed to comply, as no service report or evidence of refusal was provided. The seals on the notice did not confirm receipt by the petitioner.
2. Rule 10B of the 1957 Rules:
   • This rule mandates that a statement of claim must be submitted before an opposing party files their written statement. The Labour Court allowed the respondent to submit the claim after initiating ex-parte proceedings, violating this requirement.

Precedent Analysis

The court did not cite specific precedents but based its reasoning on the procedural framework of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. It emphasized strict adherence to procedural fairness.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Service of Notice:
   • The absence of a service report or evidence confirming receipt or refusal of notice invalidated the Labour Court’s assumption of proper service.
   • Rule 18 explicitly requires a certificate of posting for re-sending notices in case of refusal, which was not done in this case.
2. Evidence:
   • Ext. 1 could not be relied upon to establish the respondent’s employment, as it was a receipt issued by the petitioner for money received from a third party.
   • The respondent’s own testimony contradicted the Labour Court’s finding that Ext. 1 proved his employment.
3. Ex-Parte Proceedings:
   • The Labour Court’s decision to proceed ex-parte without verifying compliance with procedural rules was improper.

Conclusion

The Gauhati High Court set aside the Labour Court’s ex-parte award, ruling it unsustainable due to procedural non-compliance and insufficient evidence. The case was remanded to the Labour Court for a fresh trial, ensuring the petitioner’s opportunity to participate.

Implications

1. Procedural Compliance:
   • The judgment underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules under the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, especially regarding service of notice.
2. Burden of Proof:
   • Claimants in employment disputes must present unambiguous evidence to substantiate their claims. Courts must ensure that decisions are based on clear, corroborative evidence.
3. Fair Trial:
   • The judgment reinforces the principle of natural justice, ensuring that parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case before any adverse decision is made.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT’s Ruling: “Clandestine Manufacture and Clearance Allegations Must Be Backed by Concrete Evidence, Not Assumptions or Retracted Statements”