D.P. Singh and Another vs Sub Divisional Magistrate and Others

Hima Kohli, J.—The present writ petition has been filed against the ex parte award dated 30th July, 2002 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 1393/1997, whereunder the reference was answered in favor of the respondent/workman by directing the petitioner/management to reinstate the respondent/workman with full back wages. The petitioner/management has also sought quashing of an attachment order dated 30th July, 2005 passed by the respondent No. 1 in respect of the premises No. H-45, Sainik Farms, New Delhi for implementation of the impugned award. Notice was issued in the writ petition, vide order dated 7.9.2005. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 5. Finally, vide order dated 14.2.2007, the respondent No. 5 was proceeded against ex parte.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that that in fact there is no management existing in the name of M/s D.P. Farm House and the petitioner No. 1 is not even the owner of the premises bearing No. H-45, Sainik Farms, New Delhi as the said property is owned by the petitioner No. 2, the mother-in-law of the petitioner No. 1. In the course of arguments, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 was only engaged as a domestic gardener of the deceased husband of the petitioner No. 2 at H-45, Sainik Farms, New Delhi and there exists no industry at the said premises in the name of M/s D.P. Farm House.

It is further stated that the petitioner came to know about the passing of the ex parte award only when implementation of the award was done by the respondents No. 1 to 4 by attaching the aforesaid property. Immediately upon becoming aware of the ex parte award dated 30th July, 2002, the petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court in the year 2005, under Order IX Rule 13 CPC praying inter alias for setting aside the exparte proceedings, which application was disallowed. Immediately after the application of the petitioner was rejected, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying inter alias for setting aside the ex parte award.

It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was in fact not served as per the prescribed procedure in Rule 18 of the Industrial Disputes Central Rules, 1957, which requires service of summons to be effected either by registered post or in person, but not by UPC mode and that the court below erred in relying on the service report by UPC to proceed exparte against the petitioners. This fact is borne out from a perusal of the original records summoned from the court below.

In the aforesaid circumstances, it is deemed just, fit and appropriate to quash the exparte award dated 30th July, 2002 as also the attachment order dated 30th July, 2005, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/-, to the respondent/workman upon his entering appearance before the Labour Court.

The matter is remanded and the parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 14th January, 2008. The Registry is directed to return the original records and also forward a copy of this order to the Labour Court for perusal and compliance. In view of the fact that the industrial dispute relates to the year 1997, it is hoped that the Labour Court shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. As none appeared for the respondent No. 5/workman in the present proceedings, notice shall be issued but the Labour Court to the respondent/workman to enable him to enter appearance and participate in the proceedings.

The writ petition is disposed of along with the pending application.