1. Babu Ram Bansal, present petitioner, has filed the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 6.6.1985 passed by respondent No. 1 i.e. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar, dismissing his application for the restoration of the application under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner has also prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to restore his application regarding the recovery of money from various newspaper establishments, i.e. respondents Nos. 2 to 6, and the case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is that he was working as a Journalist with respondents Nos. 2 to 6. His emoluments were not paid to him. He made an application regarding the recovery of money from respondents Nos. 2 to 6. This application was referred to the Labour Court, Jalandhar under Section 17(2) of the Act for adjudication. This application was registered as Reference No. 255-A of 1986, and the same was supposed to be decided by the Labour Court, respondent No. 1. However, it was dismissed on 6.6.1985 for want of prosecution vide Annexure P1. On the said date the petitioner sent two applications by registered post. In one of the applications request was made to the Labour Court that the case be transferred to the Labour Court, Bhatinda. In the other application request was made for the adjournment of the case because from 1.6.1985 there was a 'Ghallu Ghara Saptah' and there was great rumour that the transport would not operate during that week. For that reason the petitioner was apprehensive in his mind that he could not go to Jalandhar as he had the feeling that he might be stranded on the way to Jalandhar. The petitioner then moved an application dated 20.7.1985, presented on 23.7.1985, for the restoration of the application dismissed on 6.6.1985. The summonses were issued on the application dated 20.7.1985 for 29.8.1985. The petitioner contacted Shri Ram Singh to pursue his case before the Labour Court, Jalandhar, since he was a resident of Mansa, thus could not attend the Court himself. A proper authorisation to appear on Form 'F' was given by the petitioner to Shri Ram Singh and presuming that Shri Ram Singh will appear and look after the case, the petitioner did not appear on 29.8.1985, as a result of which the application dated 20.7.1985 filed on 23.7.1985 was dismissed on that date. Again an application dated 4.9.1985 was moved on 16.9.1985 for the restoration of the application dated 20.7.1985 and for the restoration of Reference No. 255-A, which was dismissed in default on 6.6.1985. This application, i.e., 4.9.1985 was also dismissed by the Labour Court on 10.3.1987 for untenable reasons. The petitioner has averred in his writ petition that the Labour Court committed an error in holding that Ram Singh was not an authorised representative of the workman. In fact, proper authority was given to him. Even the order dated 6.6.1985 passed by the Labour Court was erroneous because during those days the situation in Punjab was so explosive, tense and panicky, there was every likelihood that the passenger bus service may be stopped on the way, making the passengers impossible to return to the home during night. Earlier the management was also not taking any interest and it was not appearing before the Labour Court. The reasons given by the Labour Court in dismissing the application dated 20/23.7.1985 are totally erroneous. Moreover, the poof litigant should not be allowed to suffer from the mistake, if any, committed by the authorised representative. With the above averments, the prayer regarding which I have already made a mention above.

2. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. A joint affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Some preliminary objections were taken by these respondents to the effect that the petitioner earlier filed an identical claim application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court at Bhatinda seeking to recover the same amounts allegedly due to him from the said respondents for the period for which he filed application before the State Government under Section 17(2) of the Act. The said application was dismissed by the Labour Court, Bathinda, on merits, vide an order dated 12.3.1987 after hearing the management. The petitioner did not appear before the Labour Court, Bathinda. The order passed by the Labour Court, Bhatinda, i.e., dated 12.3.1987 is Annexure R1. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed since the order dated 12.3.1987 (R1) has become final. On merits these respondents have also denied the averments of the writ petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner intentionally did not appear before the Labour Court on 6.6.1985 and on 29.8.1985, and, therefore, the impugned orders dated 6.6.1985, 29.8.1985 and 10.3.1987 are perfectly valid. The petitioner did not give any authority letter in favour of Ram Singh. Had any authority been given to him before the Labour Court, Shri Ram Singh would have appeared on 29.8.1985 or would have made arrangements to seek adjournment, but he did not appear. The authority letter relied upon by the petitioner did not bear any application number nor did it bear any date. The Labour Court had rightly doubted the veracity of the authority letter, which was filed for the first time before the Labour Court on 16.9.1985. The findings given by the Labour Court in the order dated 10.3.1987 are correct and the relief claimed by the petitioner in the present petition cannot be allowed to him. No separate return was filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, i.e., the Management of the Daily Milap, Jalandhar.

3. I have heard Shri Raman Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner; Shri P.K. Mutneja, Advocate on behalf of respondents Nos. 2, 3, 5 & 6, and Shri V.K. Kataria, Advocate, on behalf of respondent No. 4, and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

4. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner Babu Ram Bansal filed an application under Section 17(2) of the Act and claimed certain amounts. This application was submitted to the Government of Punjab, who forwarded the same to the Labour Court, Jalandhar under Section 17(2) of the Act vide memo dated 29.4.1985 and reference No. 255-A of 1985 was registered.

5. The first challenge which has been given by the petitioner is to the order dated 6.6.1985. A perusal of the same would show that two applications were filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court. One was for the transfer of the case from Labour Court, Jalandhar, to the Labour Court, Bathinda. This application has been rightly dismissed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar, because the Labour Court could not suo moto transfer the reference before itself to some other Labour Court. Such a prayer could only be made before the State Government, which alone was competent to transfer the proceedings from one Labour Court to the other for valid reasons under the Act itself. The second application was for seeking the adjournment and it was specifically pleaded by the workman-petitioner that due to the 'Ghallu Ghara Week' and the 'Shaheedi Dahaka' being observed in the State, the situation was explosive, tense and panicky, therefore, it may not be possible for him to appear before the Labour Court on the appointed date, i.e., 6.6.1985, due to the disruption of the bus service. This application has been rejected by the Labour Court by holding that the workman's apprehensions were unfounded and there was no reason to conclude that the bus service was likely to be discontinued at any time in Punjab. The order dated 6.6.1985 passed by the Labour Court, in my opinion, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The Labour Court ought to have taken even judicial notice that terrorism during those days was at its peak. A specific request was received from the side of the petitioner, in which he had given sufficient reasons for not appearing before the Labour Court on 6.6.1985. In that eventuality the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ought to have accommodated the petitioner. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that even on that date, i.e., 6.6.1985, nobody even put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. It is not discernible from the order (P1) whether the petitioner was to contribute something in the progress of his application under Section 17(2) of the Act. It is not a case of that type where the applicant was not interested in the prosecution of his application. He was aware of his rights and for that reason he made an application before the Labour Court for the adjournment of the case. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice and for the proper adjudication of the rights of the applicant, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ought to have granted the adjournment. By dismissing the application on 6.6.1985, an illegality has been committed, which is required to be remedied in the present writ petition.

6. The things proceed further. The petitioner filed an application dated 20.7.1985 on 23.7.1985 for the restoration of his application under Section 17 of the Act, which was dismissed on 29.8.1985 on the plea that nobody had put in appearance on behalf of the workman. It is a settled law that nobody should be penalised for the default, if any, committed by the lawyer/authorised representative. Annexure P2 is the application dated 4.9.1985 filed on 16.9.1985 by the petitioner through his authorised representative Ram Singh, in which it has been clearly averred that on 29.8.1985 the authorised representative could not appear and for that reason the application dated 20.3.1985 was dismissed. Responsibility has been taken by Shri Ram Singh that due to oversight he could not file the authority letter, which was given to him by the petitioner and for that reason he filed the authority letter along with the application dated 4.9.1985 filed on 16.9.1985. Advancement of the cause of justice should be the primary concern of the law courts, especially that of the Labour Court, which has been set up primarily to adjudicate the rights of the workman and the Management. Once the authorised representative has taken the responsibility for not pleading the cause of his client in a proper manner, the omission or negligence on the part of such authorised representative should not become a cause of penalty for the litigant, which was always willing to prosecute his lis. The application dated 4.9.1985 has again been rejected by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court vide order dated 10.3.1987 and in the opinion of this Court the reasons given by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, arc neither tangible not legal and he had committed an error in holding that the non-appearance on the part of the petitioner on 29.8.1985 was intentional or that the authority letter of Shri Ram Singh was not a valid one.

7. Learned counsel Shri P.K. Mutneja, Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 2, 3, 5 and 6, has tried to defend the orders passed by the Labour Court, firstly on the ground that the first, application dated 20/23.7.1985 filed by the petitioner was beyond limitation. The counsel submitted that it was to the knowledge of the petitioner that the last date of hearing was 6.6.1985. He did not take care in order to find out the fate of his application under Section 17 of the Act. He moved the first application for the restoration of the application under Section 17 of the Act on 20/23.7.1985 and by that time the limitation had already expired. I do not agree with the contention of Shri Mutneja. In M/s Shreyans Paper Mills Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, (1995-2)110 P.L.R. 128, it has been held that the technical rules of procedure as contained in the C.P.C. and the Evidence Act are not applicable to the proceedings of the Labour Court. Rather the adjudicating authority can follow such procedure as it thinks fit. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show from the record that after the dismissal of the application under Section 17 of the Act on 6.6.1985 the Labour Court sent any limitation to the petitioner. It ought to have believed the bona fides of the petitioner, when he moved the application for the restoration of the application and it committed an error in dismissing the applications dated 20/23.7.1985 and 4/16.9.1985.

8. Shri P.K. Mutneja further submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is such that he is not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition and in that regard my attention has been invited to the document Annexure R1, which is a copy of the order dated 12.3.1987 passed by the Court of Shri T.N. Gupta, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda, who dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The counsel Shri Mutneja submitted that with the dismissal of this application, the present application under Section 17 of the Act was not maintainable. The petitioner has concealed in the present writ petition the dismissal of his application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such he is not entitled to seek any directions.

9. This argument has also been considered by me in depth and I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the submissions of Shri Mutneja. In order to claim the monetary relief, the petitioner could either file the application under Section 17(2) of the Act or file the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The record of the case shows that the petitioner earlier filed the application under Section 17 of the Act somewhere in the year 1985. His application was dismissed on 6.6.1985. His application for restoration was also dismissed on 29.8.1985. He submitted the application on 4/16.9.1985. It was still pending when the petitioner filed application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Bathinda on 2.5.1986. His earlier application under Section 17 of the Act was not disposed of on merits. It was dismissed in default vide order dated 6.6.1985. The application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was again contested by the respondents on the technical grounds and a specific plea was taken by the Management that the claim of the petitioner was not maintainable in view of the fact that his earlier application under Section 17 of the Act had already been rejected by the Labour Court, Jalandhar. In fact, the application under Section 17 of the Act was not declined on merits. The technical objection of the respondents prevailed on the mind of the Labour Court, Bathinda, who passed the following order :-

"I have heard the arguments on the preliminary objections. In my opinion the application is not maintainable firstly because the applicant has not impleaded the employer which is a limited company, secondly because the claim has already been dismissed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar, thirdly because a contentious and investigative question as to the dues of the workman from his employer having been raised the claim can only proceed under Section 17(2) of the Act No. 45 of 1955 which in view of Section 16 has an overriding effect upon the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Fourthly, because the employer having no branch office at Mansa, no part of the cause of action has arisen at Bathinda and lastly because the claim being investigative in nature, an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act is not maintainable.

In view of the preliminary objections, the application is dismissed with no order as to costs."

Thus, the above would show that even the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, was not heard on merits, but it was dismissed on some technical/legal grounds.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents then submitted that the application under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is pari materia equivalent to Section 17(2) of the Act No. 45 of 1955, and finding has already been given, in the order dated 12.3.1987 passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda, that the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable. Therefore, the application under Section 17(2) filed under Act No. 45 of 1955 cannot be restored by invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

11. This submission of Shri Mutneja is also devoid of any merit because this plea of the management is a plea of defence, which can only be taken on merits while defending the application under Section 17(1) of the Act No. 45 of 1955. Moreover, the Labour Court, Bathinda itself has given the finding vide order dated 12.3.1987 that the claim of the petitioner requires investigation which can only be disposed of under Section 17(2) of the Act No. 45 of 1955. The decision dated 12.3.1987 is not on merits itself. Rather it has given the scope to the petitioner for the revival of his proceedings before the Labour Court, Jalandhar.

12. The short point which required determination on the part of this Court was whether the orders dated 6.6.1985, 29.8.1985 and 10.3.1987 require interference and whether those orders have been passed in conformity with law or not. If the basic order dated 6.6.1985 is held to be against the recognised provisions of law, the subsequent orders cannot sustain for the reasons already set forth in the earlier portion of this judgment.

13. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 6.6.1985, 29.8.1985 and 10.3.1987 are hereby set aside and directions are issued to the Labour Court, Jalandhar, to restore Reference No. 255 of 1985 and dispose of the same or merits after affording the parties opportunity to lead evidence. It is further made clear that the respondents-Managements would be at liberty to take all the pleas, including the one which were taken by the Management of Daily Hind Samachar, Jalandhar in the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court, Bathinda.

14. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Labour Court, Jalandhar, for information and compliance.