The Hindu Business Line : Madras HC ruling on witness not summoned as `party to dispute'

Chennai June 20 Only when a person was summoned to appear as a party to dispute by the Labour Court, its award would bind him, the Madras High Court has held. Since petitioner came only as witness in present case, Section 18(3) of Industrial Disputes Act would not apply. Hence, no liability could be fastened on him by the Labour Court, and, therefore, its award was illegal.

Mr Justice K. Chandru said that the writ petition was filed by one K. Palani, who was examined as management witness 1 in proceedings before the Labour Court, Vellore, in ID 37 of 1998.

The original dispute was raised by second respondent (M.P. Kandaiyan) against third respondent (M/s V. Abdul Jabbar Sahib & Sons) regarding his non-employment under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the matter was pending before the Labour Court, and the third respondent examined petitioner as witness.

The Labour Court in its award held that the petitioner's grievance was that he was denied employment unjustly. To which, there was no murmer from the mouth of M.W.1. Therefore, it followed that he was denied employment unjustly. In such circumstances, it was just and legal that he should be given employment by M.W.1 with backwages and other benefits.

On that basis, the Labour Court granted relief against the writ petitioner directing the second respondent's reinstatement with back wages. The award was attacked by the petitioner, who said he was not a party to the original dispute, and he was not summoned to be a party to the dispute.

Contention

It was contended on behalf of the second respondent that under Section 18(3), award of the Labour Court was binding on the petitioner. The judge held that only when a person was summoned to appear as a party to dispute, award would bind him, and in the present case, petitioner came only as a witness and Section18(3) would not apply.

In the present case, the petitioner admittedly came to give evidence on behalf of the third respondent. Therefore, no liability could be fastened on him by the Labour Court. Hence, the award was illegal. This contention was well merited and deserved acceptance, the Judge ruled. Accordingly, the award of the Labour Court was quashed.

Since the second respondent had initiated proceedings against a wrong employer, and now that the correct employer had been identified, it was open to the second respondent to raise a fresh dispute under Section 2A(2) of the ID Act against writ petitioner, and could claim all reliefs that he wanted to claim.

With the above observation, the Judge said the writ petition stood allowed.