JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 13th November, 2000 passed by the Labour Court No. 1. , whereby the Labour Court answered the reference against the petitioner directing the reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service with full back wages.
2. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in following terms:
Whether the services of Sh. Dharambir 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
3. After receipt of reference, the Labour Court sent a notice to both parties. While respondent/workman filed claim, the management remained absent despite notice. The award was passed on the basis of evidence of the workman tendered by way of an affidavit. The petitioner has challenged the award stating that the petitioner was not served at the time of proceedings and the petitioner, therefore, could not appear before the Labour Court. The other averments are about the conduct and work of the respondent, which cannot be gone into since there is no evidence of the petitioner before the Tribunal.
4. Trial court record was called in this case and a perusal of trial court record would show that summons were sent at the correct address of the petitioner, ten times through process server and twice by registered cover. While the process server gave report twice that he could not find address, third time, he gave report that a union secretary did not accompany him. Next time, he gave report that he went to the address, but the manager did not meet him. Another time, process server gave report that one Har Narayan met him who told that he was a tenant and there was no machine and no garments. Once the summons were pasted at the premises of the petitioner and lastly the process server went to the address with workman and reported that the manager Praveen (petitioner) met at the given address and when he was tendered the summons, he refused to receive the same and told him that if process server again came to his place, he would be killed. Service was done on 13.3.2000 in presence of workman Dharambir, who attested the report as a witness. Summons were also sent through post. Once the register AD came back with refusal and once register AD came back with report that the addressee has left the address. Two registered ADs came back without report of service.
5. It is apparent from the record that the summons were being deliberately avoided by the petitioner in connivance with the process server. When the workman accompanied the process server, the petitioner refused to accept the summons. Even by post, he refused to receive the registered cover. There is no reason to disbelieve the report of the post office on registered cover showing that it was refused. I consider that the petitioner was adequately served but he deliberately did not attend the court proceedings. It has now become a common practice, by some of the managements, not to attend the labour court proceedings and then challenge the ex parte awards in the High Courts, frustrating all efforts to give justice to the poor workman in time.
6. The workman/respondent, in this case, was terminated on 15th July, 1997. He raised an industrial dispute immediately and two years elapsed only in making efforts to serve the petitioner. After he refused to receive the summons, he was rightly considered served by the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed an award on the basis of evidence of workman. Petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity in the Award.
7. There are no merits in the writ petition. This case had a journey of eight years without any relief to the workman. I consider that in such cases, exemplary cost should be imposed on the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed with cost ofRs. 25,000/-.
8. The District Judge/ Administrative Civil Judge is directed to identify the process servers who deliberately gave false reports of address not found or a tenant being there etc. Disciplinary action should be initiated against such process servers who give false reports. All judicial officers be given instructions to promptly report incidents of false report or incompetency of process servers to the District Judge/ Administrative Civil Judge and prompt action should be taken on such reports. A copy of the judgment be circulated to all the judicial officers for information and compliance.
Intimation of compliance be sent to Registrar General of this Court.