R.M. Udyog vs Secretary (Labour) and Others

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenges the ex-parte Award dated 26.2.1996 passed by the Labour Court whereby it was directed that the workman will be reinstated with full back wages.

The only ground pressed by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Labour Court gravely erred in proceeding exparte against the petitioner because in fact there was no service on the petitioner before the Labour Court. Learned Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the complete order sheets till the stage the petitioner allegedly appeared hrough one of its employees. A reading of the order sheets before the Labour Court dated 17.2.1993, 9.7.1993, 4.10.1993, 4.1,1994, 22.3.1994, 29.6.1994, 5.9.1994 and 7.11.1994 shows hat the case was fixed for service of the management and the management was not served. The only relevant order thereafter is the order dated 9.1.1995 and which reads as under:

9.1.1995

Present: Workman in person.

Lawyers are on strike. Management not served. Let the management be served by affixation for 21.3.1995.

Sd/-

POLC VII

Present: Shri Harjinder Singh, Service Engineer.

At this stage file taken up again.

Copy of claim given. For W/s to come up on the date already fixed.

Sd/-

Harjinder Singh

9.1.1995

Sd/-

POLC VII

It is therefore clear that on 9.1.1995, the management was not served as per the earlier part of the order and the later part of the order shows that one Sh. Harjinder Singh allegedly appeared for the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner concern had closed down in 1993 and therefore there is no question of any employee appearing on behalf of it before the Labour Court. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to the visiting card which was taken by the Labour Court in proof of the fact that employee was allegedly the employee of the petitioner. A reference to the visiting cards shows that the employee was not the employee of the petitioner M/s R.M Udyog, because the visiting card is of Harjinder Singh, Service Engineer of M/s Auto Ignition Private Ltd.

Even before this Court, the respondent No. 4/workman has not appeared in spite of service. The address of the workman before the Labour Court and this Court for service was through the General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union and which was served as per the summons appearing in the record of this Court on 5.9.1997. The respondent No. 4 has therefore not appeared in spite of due service in this Court.

Though the matter is of 1992 vintage and the workman was allegedly terminated on 15.11.1991, in view of the fact that the petitioner was not served before the Labour Court, I have no option but to set aside the Award and remand the case back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. This Court is persuaded to exercise its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on account of the fact that the order sheets of the Labour Court clearly demonstrate that no service was effected on the petitioner and the person who appeared on behalf of the petitioner was not the employee of the petitioner. It is trite that since valuable rights of the parties are affected in any litigation, it is necessary that before proceeding exparte against the person, such person must be duly served. There is no service as required by law upon the petitioner before the Labour Court in the facts and circumstances of this case.

The impugned Award dated 26.2.1996 is therefore set aside and the parties are directed to appear before the concerned Labour Court on 29.11.2010. The concerned Labour Court will issue appropriate notices to the respondent No. 4/workman herein before proceeding further with the matter. No notice need be issued to the petitioner/management as the present order is passed in the presence of the petitioner and whose counsel undertakes to appear before the Labour Court on 29.11.2010.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.