JUDGMENT
J.M. Malik, J.
1. Arguments heard.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. I have marshalled the record and heard the counsel for the parties. On 01.04.1999, the Labour Court directed that summons could not be issued to management as registered cover was not filed. The workman was granted opportunity to file the registered cover for 15.09.1999.
4. On 15.09.1999, management was reported to have refused summons sent through the registered AD. There is one report on the registered AD bearing different dates i.e. 06.04.1999 and 07.04.1999. It bears the report “refused”. It is also noteworthy that the registered AD was sent at the address of Managing Director/Director Personal Point Care Limited, S-224 Greater Kailash – II, New Delhi. The counsel for the petitioner admitted that this address belongs to their office. It is also interesting to note that underneath the first above said address, there is another address, which reads M-175, Greater Kailash – II. The counsel for the petitioner admits that M-175, Greater Kailash – II also belongs to the petitioner firm at that relevant time.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the above said report of refusal cannot be said to be proper service because two addresses are mentioned and it is not clear who had refused to accept the service. The learned Counsel for the petitioner cited an authority reported in Hydro. Tech. Engg. Co. and Anr. v. NCT of Delhi and Ors. 2006 (109) FLR 796, wherein, it was held :
6. The English translation of the report of the process server states:
Today dated 8.2.2001 went with worker where Master/owner was available, who refused to accept the summons.
7. On the basis of the above report the Labour Court has concluded that the management refused service and he proceeded to decide the matter ex parte. A perusal of the report of the process server shows that it is absolutely vague. It does not mention the name of the so-called Master/owner or the place where he was contacted or the time. The writ petitioner has clearly stated in the writ petition that it was never served with the summons and the whole proceedings were behind its back.
8. In our opinion, no reliance can be placed on the report as it is absolutely vague and does not even mention the name of the person on whom the summons were served nor the time and place.
6. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent strenuously argued that the above cited authority reported in Hydro Tech. Engg. Co. and Anr. v. NCT of Delhi and Ors. does not apply to this case on all fours. He submitted that a line of difference has to be drawn between Process Server and the Postman. He pointed out that the court must draw a presumption of service, the moment it stands proved on the record, that, registered post was sent at a correct address irrespective of the fact whether it was served or whether it was refused or not. He stressed that it is the petitioner and nobody else who is to carry the ball in explaining who had refused to accept the notice particularly when addresses mentioned in the original envelope were admittedly correct. He argued this point for a while but in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, he ultimately gave up the above said plea.
7. He further argued that he has no objection if the award is set aside and opportunity of being heard is accorded to the petitioner subject to petitioner’s depositing the entire award amount with the court till the pendency of proceedings before the Labour Court. He further prayed that this Court must set a time frame for disposal of the above said case by the Labour Court.
8. On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner did not pick up a conflict with the above said conditions.
9. The observations made by the Apex Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. 1980 (Supp) SCC 420 and in Anil Sood v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II (2001) 10 SCC 534 go to reveal that the Labour Court is empowered to set aside the award if it is shown to it that there existed a sufficient cause for non-appearance of a party. I accordingly set aside the award, grant another opportunity to the petitioner to contest the case subject to the following conditions. The petitioner is directed to deposit the entire award amount with the Labour Court within a period of one month from today. The said amount be kept in the form of FDR renewal after every six months basis. The said amount will be paid to the party, who is found entitled for the same. The Labour Court is further directed to dispose of the case within a period of four months from the receipt of this file and if possible to hear the case on day-to-day basis.
10. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of aforesaid.
11. Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 10.12.2007.
12. Copies of this order be given dusty to both the counsel for the parties.
13. Copy of this order be sent to the Labour Court immediately.
14. Labour Court record be sent back immediately through Special Messenger along with copy of the order.