Principal, Maharshi Vidya Mandir Lehdra Naka, Sagar Vs. Labour Court, Sagar & Another

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

WA, 489 of 2017, Judgment Date: Mar 15, 2018

Law Laid Down -

• The scheme of the M.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 particularly of Rule 10-A and Sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 10-B of the said Rules makes it abundantly clear that the notice of the first hearing is not required to be given when the party has already appeared before the Labour Court on the basis of the notice issued by the Court.
• Sub-rule (3) of Rule 10-B of the said Rules is not mandatory but pertains to matter of procedure and therefore, it has to be read in the context of which such Rule appears and not in isolation. The purpose of the notice in terms of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 10-B is that the parties must be aware of the proceedings pending before it. The Labour Court is not expected to follow a party after a notice was served upon it.
• Since the object of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Rules made thereunder is expeditious disposal of the dispute, the deferment of hearing after the parties had notice of the dispute by a notice from the Labour Court, is not conducive to the industrial disputes resolution.
• The interpretation of the Rules has to be keeping in view the object of the Act, therefore, the interpretation which defeats the purpose of the Act, cannot be accepted.
• Division Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in Bhagwan Das vs. Radhey Shyam Gupta in Misc. Petition No.473/1975 and Single Bench judgment in W.P. No.3667/2001 (Maharashi Mahesh Yogi Vaidik Vishwavidyalaya vs. Smt. Meena Gupta) do not lay down the correct law and thus, overruled.

Principal, Maharshi Vidya Mandir Lehdra Naka, Sagar Vs. Labour Court, Sagar & Another