Mod Serap Industries vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

Ranjit Singh, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition to impugn the award passed by the labour Court (Annexure P-5). The respondent/workman had approached the labour Court challenging his termination on the ground that he was not allowed to join duties w.e.f. 04.08.2003. In the written statement, the petitioner took up the stand that he was a habitual absentee and he accepted his full and final dues to the tune of Rs. 3274/- and resigned from the job. It was accordingly denied that the services of the workman were dispensed with and terminated in an illegal manner. 16.06.2009 was the date fixed for recording the evidence of the workman and none appeared on behalf of the management and it was proceeded ex-parte.

Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to order Annexure P-4 to show that the case was taken up at 11.45 and it was assumed that no one was interested in contesting the reference and it was proceeded ex-parte. Though the counsel has referred to some amendment made in this order in hand but without going into this aspect, I feel that the petitioner/management was not given proper opportunity to defend the case. The labour court appears to have acted in a hurry to dispose of the reference without giving opportunity to the petitioner/management to properly contest the reference. The petitioner/management had appeared before the Court and had taken up a positive stand that the workman had resigned. The direction to proceed against the petitioner when no one appeared at 11.45 A.M. would not sound fair and proper. The application to recall the order for proceedings exparte was also set aside without much justification. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained and are set aside. The case is remanded back to the labour court to continue with the reference from the stage the petitioner was proceeded exparte. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the labour Court on 06.10.2010. The parties would be given time, if required, to arrange the evidence and the labour Court may continue with the proceedings in accordance with law.

Since the respondent/workman has been made to suffer unnecessarily for the fault of management, the petitioner shall pay cost of 10,000/- to the respondent/workman. The cost be deposited before the labour Court and the labour Court will take up the reference only if the cost is deposited.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.