AGRA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. versus THE LABOUR COURT, MEERUT & ANR.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 675 · Decided: 08-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

; 
~-----
' 
' . 
.. 
• 
A 
B 
c 
:D 
675' 
·AGRA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD • 
. v. \ 
THE LABOUR COURT, MEERUT & ANR. 
~ . 
-
. 
. 
, N_ovember 8, 1968· __ _ 
[J. 11. SHELAT, v; BliARaAvA AND c. A. VAmiALrnaAM, 11.f ·. 
. Industrial Dispute-Non-appearance of party-.;-Dismissal of applica-· 
tion by Labour Court-Second applica!ion-Maintainability. 
. -
. -
. Uttar Pradesh. In~ustrialDisputes Rules, 1957 R. 16(1)-Scope of. 
The second. respondent originally filed an application for certain re-
li~fs . against its •!"Pl?yer (the appellant-company). 
The Labour Court 
dismissed the apphcation as not having been prosecuted for the default of 
the ~pp_earanc~ ~f the applicants._ The second respondent filed a second 
api;hca:ion. ~laimmg the same reh~fs .. The · management objected to the 
ma1nta1nab1hty of the second ·application· contending that if the -workmen 
were agg:reived by the earlier order, the proper remedy that should have 
been· adopted by the!" was by takiag action under r. -16(2) of the Uttar 
. Pr~de~h Industrial Disputes, Rules, 1957. The Labour Court rejected the 
obiect!on, and the appellant challanged ·the decision in a writ petition to 
the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. 
-
HELD : An order dismissing a ca;e for default or non-prosecution, 
does not come under sub-r. (1) of r. 16 and to such an order sub-r. (2) 
has no application. 
Neither the Act nor the rules empower a Tribunal or Labour CoUrt 
to dismiss an application for default of appearance of a party. Rule 
16(1) is the only 1'rovision providing for what is to be done when a 
E 
party is absent. That provision, which clearly enjoins the. Labour Court 
. or Tribunal in the circumstances mentioned· therein "to proceed with the: 
case in his absence", either on the date fixed or on_ any other date to 
which the bearing may be adjourned, coupled with the further direction 
"and pass such order as it may deem fit and- proper':', ,indicates that the_ 
Tribunal or Labour Court should take up the case and decide it on merits 
and not dismiss it for default. The necessity 
for filing an application 
for setting aside an order passed in the case_ in the absence Of a party, as 
F 
contemplated under sub-r. (2) of r. 16 will arise only when· an order on 
merits affecting the case has been passed in -the absence_ of a party._ under 
sub-r. (I) of r. 16. [680 E; 681 A-Bl 
y;G 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTIOS: Civil Appeal No. 1631 of 
. ·1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the order dated May 11, 1967 
of the Allahabad 'High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 
1647 of 1967. 
H 
S. V. Gupte 'and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant. 
M. K. Ramamurthi, Shaymnala Pappu and Vineet Kumar for · 
respondent No. 2. 
-
-
· 
The Judgment of the Court was _delivered by 
Vaidialingam, J. In this ·appeal, by soeaal leave, the appel-
lant challenges the order Qf the AUahaoad High Court ~ated May~ -
-- - - -
676 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 2 S.C.R. 
11, 1967 dismissing Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1647 
of 1967. 
The facts leading up to the filing of the said writ petition by 
the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution; may be briefly 
stated. 
The appellant is an existing company under the Compa-
nies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at Calcutta. 
The co~11-
pany was and is being managed by Martin Burn Ltd., Secretaries 
and Treasurers. The company carries on the business of genera-
tion, distribution and supply of electricity within its licensed area 
in the city of Agra and its environs in the State of Uttar Pradesr 
On a reference made by the Government of Uttar Pradesh regard-
ing a dispute that had arisen between the electricity undertakings 
managed by Martin Burn Ltd., of which the appellant was one, 
and their workmen about the demand of the workmen for supply 
of uniforms, free of charge, the Chairman, Martin Electricity 
Supply Company Adjudication Board made an award on Febru-
ary 20, 194 7 in and by which certain types of workmen were 
directed to be supplied with uniforms. The said award remained 
operative till April 15, 1950 on which date it was terminated. 
Though the award had been terminated, the appellant continued 
the practice of supplying uniforms to its workmen. Subsequently, 
again, a dispute was raised by the employees of the electricity 
undertakings managed by Martin Burn Ltd., regarding the supply 
of uniforms to some categories of workers. The said dispute was 
referred by the Government of Uttar P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.