EXECUTIVE FNRINEER, HALA TUBE WELL DIVISION Versus ABDUL SATTAR

DECISION

This appeal is directed against the order of Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad allowing a grievance petition of the respondent for payment of wages from 2‑12‑1989 onwards.

2. The respondent was appointed as Tubewell Chowkidar on regular basis with effect from 2‑12‑1989 in BPS‑1. He had submitted his Medical Fitness Certificate also but he was not being paid his wages. Ultimately on 1‑4‑1990 a fresh appointment order was issued but his service from 2‑12‑1989 to 1‑4‑1990 was not recognised. He then sent his grievance notice on 7‑8‑1990 and ultimately filed his petition under section 25‑A of I.R.O. before the Labour Court at Sukkur on 22‑2‑1990. On 18‑3‑1990 the petition was. returned to the respondent for being filed in the proper Court which was then presented to Labour Court at Hyderabad on 20‑3‑1990. It was admitted and notices were issued to both the appellants (employers). There is no evidence of service of these notices afresh though the letters must have been sent by post and it was presumed that the letters had reached the addressees. The matter was proceeded with ex parte and the evidence produced by the respondent was recorded. The learned Labour Court passed the order issuing directions to the appellants for payment of wages and continuance of service of the respondent.

3. In this case also an application was moved by the appellants before the Labour Court after decision for setting aside the ex parte order. This application was rejected because it was admitted that the non‑attendance was due to a mistake of fact. The learned Labour Court believed that the present appellants had knowledge of pendency of the proceedings in Court and non- attendance had not been explained. The present appeal was then filed on 6‑1‑1992 against the decision dated 11‑7‑1991 and the order dismissing the application for setting aside the ex parte order on 8‑12‑1991.

4. Obviously the decision of the Labour Court on the grievance application is based on scanty evidence and the other side has not been heard. The learned Advocate for the appellants has argued that there was no proof of service of notice on the Project Director and the Executive Engineer. Since the facts of the case gleaned from the decision and orders of Labour Court and the orders themselves, are not very clear I feel that this is a fit case for fresh trial on merits. The decision and orders of Labour Court are accordingly set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Labour Court at Hyderabad for recording evidence afresh and deciding the grievance petition on merits after hearing both the parties.

H.B.T./2419/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.