2007(6) ALL MR 26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY(NAGPUR BENCH)
A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
Shri. Aminkha S/O. Musakhan Vs. The Industrial Court, Maharashtra & Ors.
Writ Petition No.4586 of 2006
22nd August, 2007
Petitioner Counsel: Shri. S. A. GORDEY
Respondent Counsel: Shri. ANOOP PARIHAR
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (1971), Ss.4, 5 - Power of Industrial Court - Scope - Complaint by petitioner employees in Industrial Court - Dismissal of, in default - Application for restoration of - Would be maintainable before the Industrial Court - Said Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitice.
If the Industrial Court exercised the power of dismissing the complaint in default, it cannot be said that it has no power to consider the application for restoration of such complaint which was dismissed in default. Unlike the Tribunals, quasi judicial authorities, Courts of law have inherent powers to act ex debito justitice. The Industrial Court which dismissed the Complaint in default thus will also have the power to restore the same. It will be appropriate to quote the legal maxim : quando Lex aliquid alicui concredit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non-potest (When Law gives anything to anyone, it gives also all those things without which the thing itself would be unavailable). [Para 5]
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT :- Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. It appears that the complaint that was filed by the petitioner with others was dismissed since the complainant including the petitioner were absent on 29-7-2003. Initially, on 27-2-1996, the Industrial Court had made an order not to discontinue services of those complainants including the petitioner. After dismissal of the said complaint, the petitioner approached this Court as late as on 5-9-2006 and also obtained interim order on 5-9-2006 to the effect that respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not appoint any casual or daily wage or temporary employee on the post held by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Advocate Shri. Gordey for petitioner states that instead of approaching the Industrial Court for restoration of his complaint, which was dismissed in his absence, he approached this Court, since according to him there is no provision under the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act for applying for restoration of the complaint. He then submitted that the petitioner is working since 1987 and even now he has been given the appointment order. He is, thus, in employment.
4. A.G.P. Shri. Parihar for respondents opposed the petition on the ground that this petition has been filed belatedly and, thus, cannot be entertained. He is unable to dispute the statement made by the Counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is in employment even today.
5. Having considered the submissions made by Counsel for the petitioner as well as A.G.P. for respondents, I find that if the Industrial Court exercised the power of dismissing the complaint in default, it cannot be said that it has no power to consider the application for restoration of such complaint which was dismissed in default. Unlike the Tribunals, quasi judicial authorities, Courts of law have inherent powers to act ex debito justitice. The Industrial Court which dismissed the Complaint in default thus will also have the power to restore the same. It will be appropriate to quote the legal maxim : quando Lex aliquid alicui concredit, concedere videtur et id sine quo re ipsae esse non-potest (When Law gives anything to anyone, it gives also all those things without which the thing itself would be unavailable).
6. In view of this, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the Industrial Court for restoration of his complaint that was dismissed in default and also to file an application for condonation of delay and tender such evidence in support thereof oral as well as documentary for proving his case for the delay caused in filing application for restoration. If such applications are filed, the Industrial Court shall consider them in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made herein. It is, however, made clear that it is the petitioner who is to be blamed for the delay that has occasioned and, therefore, while working out the relief, if any, the complainant, if the same is restored, the Industrial Court shall not grant any monetary benefits or amount of back wages for the period from 29-7-2003.
7. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty. The interim order made by this Court on 5-9-2006 shall continue for a period of six weeks from today. Petitioner to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the respondents.