Labour courts cannot pass “cryptic orders,” which neither give reasons nor discuss the merits of the case, even if one of the parties to a case had failed to enter appearance, the Madras High Court Bench here has said.
Justice K. Chandru made the observation while allowing a writ petition filed by the management of St. Joseph's High School (now renamed as ManalMadha Higher Secondary School) in Tuticorin district against an award passed by the Tirunelveli Labour Court on July 2, 2004.
The award was passed following an industrial dispute raised by an individual who was working as an attender in the school but denied work since August 13, 1992. The Labour Court ordered his reinstatement without discussing the merits of the case and hence the present writ petition.
The school management had also assailed the award on the grounds that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes (I.D.) Act would not apply to a minority educational institution and that educational institutions would not fall under the definition of the term ‘industry.'
However, Mr. Justice Chandru rejected the last two grounds after stating that the Supreme Court in Christian Medical College Hospital Employees' Union case (1988) had authoritatively held that even minority institutions were bound to implement the labour laws.
Further, the amendment to the term ‘industry' under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act thereby excluding educational institutions from the purview of the legislation was yet to be notified by the Centre.
Therefore, no reliance could be placed upon such provision, he said.
The judge remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for considering it afresh on conditions that the school management should pay arrears of subsistence allowance to the employee at the rate of Rs. 1,310 per month from July, 2010, and to continue to pay the allowance for the next six months.
He made it clear that “if the said payment is not paid within four weeks and a cost memo not filed before the labour court, the Industrial Dispute award passed on July 2, 2004 will stand revived without further reference to this court.”
