JUDGMENT
Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the ex-parte award dated 1.3.96 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 95/90. Pursuant to the reference made by the Secretary (Labour) Delhi Admn., Delhi the dispute was referred for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) & 12(5) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The terms of reference are reproduced below:
Whether Shri Pratap singh has abandoned his services or the same have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
2. On receipt of reference, notices were issued to the respective parties. The workman had filed statement of claim wherein he stated inter alia that he was employed by the management in its Horticulture Department w.e.f. 28.6.83 as a Vehicle attendant-cum-Mali and was being paid wages under the Minimum Wages Act applicable to unskilled casual worker. He was having unblemished and uninterrupted record of service. The case of the petitioner is that on 8.8.87 he met with an accident resulting in injuries to his right hand for which reason he could not attend to his duties from 8.8.87. He was declared medically fit and thereafter reported for duty. The workman submitted the medical and fitness certificate on 27.10.87 but still not permitted to join his duty. The workman was assured that he would be taken on duty after getting an approval from the higher authorities and in this way the workman was not permitted to join his services till 31st January, 1989 when he was told that his services had already been terminated and, therefore, could not be taken back on duty. The workman had claimed his reinstatement with full back wages and challenged his termination order being in violation of principles of natural justice and also without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal in the impugned order has observed that since October 1991 several opportunities were granted to the management to file written statement but even after imposition of the cost, the same was not filed. The defense of the petitioner management was stuck off by the labour court on 26.4.93. The tribunal has observed that the petitioner management made casual appearances but on 11.12.95 none appeared even to cross examine the claimant/workman. However, on 5.2.96, arguments were advanced by both the parties. Believing the averments of respondent workman and the evidence led by the workman through his affidavit, the tribunal has answered the reference in favor of the workman and gave directions to the petitioner MCD to reinstate the workman with full back wages and continuity of service.
3. Ms. Amita Gupta counsel for the petitioner has contended that even if the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte still the labour court had to test the veracity of the facts as placed by the workman. Counsel for the petitioner says that even after sustaining injuries on the right hand the workman ought to have joined his duties. Counsel for the petitioner also states that he being an employee of the MCD, medical certificate of ESI should have been produced and not any private medical certificate. Counsel for the petitioner also says that even if the petitioner MCD was proceeded ex-parte the same in itself cannot justify reinstatement of respondent.
4. On the other hand counsel for the respondent says that despite various opportunities granted to the petitioner MCD the petitioner did not prefer to contest the case and, therefore, the tribunal had no option but to pass an ex-parte award against the petitioner management. Counsel for the respondent also contended that workman had duly proved his case by proving various documents including the medical certificate and once neither the averments were denied by the petitioner nor the workman was cross-examined, therefore, the tribunal has rightly believed the case of the respondent workman. Counsel for the respondent has contended that award passed by the tribunal is neither illegal nor perverse and since the termination of the workman was without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, therefore, the reference has been rightly answered by the labour court in favor of the workman.
5. I find force in the submission of counsel for the respondent. The labour court is the court of final finding of facts. A perusal of the award shows that despite several opportunities granted to the petitioner MCD, they neither preferred to contest the case nor preferred to cross-examine the workman. Once the petitioner management was duly served then, it was for the petitioner management to contest the case. I also do not find any force in the submission of counsel for the petitioner that respondent workman could have joined his duties on his post of mali even if the workman had sustained injuries on his right hand. Once the medical certificate was given on 27.10.87, certifying the fitness of the workman, it cannot be said that he was fit to perform his normal duties. Even otherwise the medical certificate remained unrebutted and, therefore, also presumption does arise in favor of the respondent that he was not medically fit to join his duties. Once the petitioner management has not preferred to contest the case, the pleas now being advanced by the counsel for the petitioner in support of writ petition cannot be appreciated.
6. Counsel for the respondent informs that respondent has already died on 30.11.2004. Counsel for the petitioner says that as far as payment of back wages is concerned, some recovery has already been made by the respondent pursuant to the award. The petitioner is directed to release the balance amount in terms of the award towards the back wages as left payable along with 12% interest from the date of award till actual payment in favor of the legal heirs of the deceased respondent workman.
7. There is no merit in the writ petition.
8. Dismissed.