IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.M. No. 4335 of 2009 in
C.W.P. No. 10216 of 2007.
Date of Decision : March 09, 2009.
Ramsons Organic Limited. .... Petitioner .
Versus.
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Gurgaon, and another. ... Respondents.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present:- Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate,
for the non applicant-petitioner.
Mr. A.K. Tyagi, Advocate,
for the applicant-respondent No. 2.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
C.M. No. 4335 of 2009.
Application stands allowed as prayed for.
C.W.P. No. 10216 of 2007.
In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated
09.05.2005 (Annexure-P-5) and order dated 19.04.2006 (Annexure-P-7),
vide which initially the reference was answered in favour of the respondent-
workman and thereafter, an application moved by the petitioner-management
for setting aside the ex-parte award, was dismissed on the ground that the
Court has become functus officio and therefore, could not entertain an
application in connection with the dispute relying upon the judgments of
Hon’ble the Supreme Court.
C.W.P. No. 10216 of 2007. -2-
Counsel for the petitioner-management contends that the Court
has proceeded on the assumption that the service had been effected upon the
petitioner-management merely by issuance of the registered notices. There
is nothing on record which would substantiate, as a matter of fact, the
service was effected upon the petitioner-management and that they had
indeed been served the registered notices which had been sent. The records
further do not indicate as to whether the acknowledgment due had been
received back by the Labour Court in that regard or not.
Counsel for the petitioner-management contends that the
respondent-workman was employed with the petitioner-management as a
Chowkidar and had been working with them from 12.03.1999 to August,
2003, thereafter, he stopped coming to the job. On his absence, letters were
sent to him on various dates to come present on the job but the respondent-
workman never turned back. It is a case of abandonment and with no option
left, the services of the respondent-workman were terminated. He contends
that the respondent-workman can still come and join the job. He further
contends that in view of this position, the award deserves to be set aside and
an opportunity be given to the petitioner-management to contest the claim of
the respondent-workman before the Labour Court.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman
contends that the petitioner-management had been properly served during
the proceedings before the Labour Court and they had not chosen to appear
before the Labour Court. Left with no option, the Court has proceeded to
pass the ex-parte award and now the petitioner-management after the passing
of the award, cannot be allowed to turn around and state that they were not
served before the Labour Court.
C.W.P. No. 10216 of 2007. -3-
I have heard counsel for the parties and have also gone through
the records of the Labour Court.
In the present case, it appears that the assertion put forth by the
petitioner-management that they had not been served, is correct as there is
no indication that indeed notices were served on the petitioner-management.
The Court had proceeded on the presumption of service which also does not
indicate in the report which had been presented to the Labour Court. It
would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner-management be given
an opportunity to contest the claim of the respondent-workman before the
Labour Court, however, it would be just and equitable that the respondent-
workman be compensated for this. While issuing notice of motion in this
matter on 12.07.2007, this Court had directed the petitioner-management to
deposit Rs. 25,000/- with the Labour Court, Gurgaon. The said amount
stands deposited with the Labour Court as stated by Counsel for the
petitioner-management. This amount be released to the respondent-
workman and he would also be entitled to the benefit of Section 17-B of the
Industrial Disputes Act from the date of filing of the affidavit in this Court
i.e. 03.03.2009 till today.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed, the
impugned order dated 09.05.2005 (Annexure-P-5), is hereby set aside.
The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on
30.03.2009.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
March 09, 2009.
sjks.