Management of DDA vs P.O. Labour Court, Tis Hazari and Another

P.K. Bhasin, J.—The petitioner, Delhi Development Authority, has challenged the ex-parte Award dated 13th February, 1996 passed by the labour Court in ID No. 36/1994 whereby the termination of services of the respondent no.2-workman by his employer was held to be illegal and consequently, a direction was issued to the employer, petitioner-management herein, to reinstate him in service with continuity as well as full back wages. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no opportunity was given to the management by the labour Court to contest the claim of the respondent no. 2-workman an ex-parte Award was passed against it without any justification. It has also been contended that in case the Award of the labour Court is allowed to stand that would benefit a person who has got the appointment with the petitioner by playing fraud. Elaborating this point counsel submitted that it is the case of the petitioner-management, which of course could not be placed before the labour Court since no opportunity was given to it for that purpose, that many persons had started working with Delhi Development Authority, including the respondent no.-2 herein, by preparing fake documents of their appointment/posting purporting to have been issued by the officials of DDA and when that large scale fraud was detected the Central Bureau of Investigation had conducted an investigation and many criminal cases are pending. It has been contended that this is a fit case where the matter should be remanded back to the labour Court after setting aside the ex-parte Award for a fresh trial after giving an opportunity to the petitioner-management to put forth its defence.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2-workman, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner-management through its Executive Engineer was duly served with the notice of the statement of claim of the respondent no. 2-workman sent to it by the labour court by registered A.D. post for 3rd April, 1995, which was the date for the appearance of the petitioner-management before the labour Court and therefore, the petitioner-management cannot now contend that no opportunity had been given to it to contest the case of the respondent no. 2-workman. It has also been contended that in any event in the entire writ petition the petitioner-management does not claim that order dated 3rd April, 1995, when the petitioner-management was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte by the labour court, was not correct order and, in fact, counsel further contended, there is no challenge to the labour Court''s order that the petitioner-management had been served, therefore, the submissions advanced orally today before this Court by the counsel for the petitioner to the effect that no opportunity had been given to the petitioner-management by the labour Court to defend the workman''s case should not be entertained at all.

I have perused the labour Court''s record which shows that the labour Court had ordered the petitioner-management to be proceeded against ex-parte on 3rd April, 1995 noticing that the management of DDA had refused to accept the summons and that refusal was considered to be sufficient service of notice of the case upon the management and accordingly the case was adjourned for recording of ex-parte evidence of the respondent no.2-workman. After recording ex-parte evidence of the respondent no. 2-workman the impugned Award came to be passed on 13th February, 1996 whereby, as noticed already, the petitioner-management was directed to reinstate the respondent no. 2-workman with full back wages and continuity of service.

A perusal of the trial Court''s record, however, shows that there is no report of refusal to accept the notice on the part of the petitioner-management as had been noticed by the labour Court in its order dated 3rd April, 1995. No such report of refusal on any summons has been brought to my notice even today by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2-workman. However, he has submitted that even though there is no refusal report available on record of the labour Court but there is an A.D. card available on record which shows the receipt of notice by the executive engineer concerned of DDA and the labour Court had in the impugned Award taken note of that A.D. Card. In these circumstances, counsel contended, it is clear that the petitioner-management had itself chosen not to contest the respondent no. 2-workman''s claim. There is no doubt that there is one A.D. card available on record showing the receipt of some notice sent by the labour Court to the Executive Engineer of DDA but I am not inclined to place any reliance on that AD card for the reason that the labour Court itself had not taken cognizance of that AD card and had decided to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner-management for the reason that it had refused to accept the notice when tendered by the process server. In fact, in the impugned Award of the labour Court it was observed that " .....notice was duly received by the executive engineer as per A.D., now placed on record, for the said date". From these highlighted words it appears that A.D. card had been placed on record subsequently and it was not there on 3rd April, 1995.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned Award dated 13th February, 1996 was passed against the petitioner-management without any notice to it and so is liable to be set aside. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned Award is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the labour Court for fresh trial after giving petitioner-management opportunity to contest the case on merits. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not gone into the question as to whether the respondent no. 2-workman had obtained appointment by resorting to forgery etc. and if such plea is raised before the labour Court by the petitioner-management the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. This matter shall now be taken up by the labour Court for passing of appropriate directions in the matter on 21st May, 2012 at 2 p.m. on which date the parties shall appear there and it would not be necessary for the labour Court to issue any notice for the appearance of the parties.