AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mahesh Grover, J. - CM No. 1083-LPA of 2016
Marginal delay of 20 days is condoned.
C.M. stands allowed.
LPA No. 498 of 2016
This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 11.2.2016 where the writ petitioner (present appellant) had questioned the ex-parte award of the Industrial Tribunal granting relief of reinstatement to the workman who had worked with them from January 1996 to 16.11.2009 when her services were abruptly terminated. She had claimed a reference soon thereafter.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that she was never their employee and rather was working under a contractor.
We find that even though notice was issued to the appellant, they chose not to appear resulting in an ex-parte order dated 2.11.2010 which was also never assailed, eventually resulting in an ex-parte award on 1.9.2015.
The only reason for not responding to the notice of the Industrial Tribunal has now been attributed to a misconception in the mind of the Executive Officer/Secretary of the Municipal Committee who laboured under a presumption that the dispute essentially would be between her and the principal employer i.e. the contractor.
In short, the plea is that the Municipal Committee was never the principal employer. Rather, we see from material on record that the Committee was audacious enough to issue a communication to the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal on 7.7.2014 stating that as per the record from 1996 to 16.11.2009 the workman Smt. Kamla Devi was not recorded as an employee and the employment was under some contractor for which Nagar Parishad, Palwal is not responsible. Apart from the fact that such a procedure is absolutely unknown to law as no such communication to the Presiding Officer can be encouraged, the appellant made no attempt to get the ex-parte order dated 2.11.2010 set aside to join the proceedings before the Labour Court and put forward its stand. It would thus be too late in the day for the appellant to come out with such a plea which apparently is a self serving and attempted to be introduced through a procedure unknown to law.
The learned Single Judge has noticed the default of the appellant while commenting on the un-controverted evidence adduced by the workman including one certificate issued by the Secretary of the Municipal Committee acknowledging her employment with them.
We thus are of the opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge particularly when the appellant failed to substantiate their plea of the workman being an employee under a contractor to disown her employment with them. So much so the communication written to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, even though a practise to be deprecated, does not mention the contractor who would have employed the workman for the benefit of the Committee.
Finding no substantive reason in the plea, we decline it.
Appeal dismissed.