Super Cut Engineering Work vs Kaushlender

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 25.11.2010, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad, vide which application filed by Petitioner for restoration of the application dated 19.3.2010 for setting aside ex parte award dated 26.2.2010 against the present Petitioner-Management was dismissed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad.

Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a reference was made by Hon''ble Governor of Haryana for adjudication of dispute between the parties before Labour Court, Faridabad, vide order dated 15.5.2008. On notice being issued, both the parties appeared before learned Labour Court, Faridabad. Written statement was also filed by present Petitioner-Management. However, during pendency of the said proceedings, none appeared for the Petitioner-Management and hence, Petitioner-Management was proceeded ex parte on 25.2.2010. Ex parte award was also passed in favour of Respondent-workman and against Petitioner-Management by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad. The Petitioner-Management filed an application dated 19.3.2010 for setting aside ex parte proceedings and ex parte award dated 26.2.2010, by taking the plea that inadvertently the date was noted by authorised representative of the Petitioner-Management as 25.3.2010 instead of 25.2.2010. However, none appeared on behalf of the Petitioner-Management in the application too and the same was also dismissed in default on 4.5.2010. The Petitioner-Management filed another application for restoration of the said application dated 19.3.2010, however, the said application was also dismissed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad, vide impugned order, dated 25.11.2010, Annexure P3.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Management that authorised representative of Petitioner-Management could not appear on 4.5.2010 as well due to wrong noting of the date as the date was noted down as 14.5.2010 instead of 4.5.2010. However, no such application was moved on 14.5.2010. Rather the application was moved on 14.6.2010, whereas the same was typed on 28.5.2010. It has also been observed by learned Presiding Officer that the application was not even supported by any affidavit. Hence the same was dismissed vide impugned order by observing as under:

Arguments on the application for restoration of the application dated 19.3.2010 heard. As a matter of fact an ex parte award was passed in favour of the workman on 26.2.2010. In that case the Respondent/Management was appearing at initial stage but during the pendency of the reference, the Management was proceeded against ex parte.

Thereafter, the Management filed an application for setting aside the ex parte award on 25.3.2010. Again on 4.5.2010, the Management did not appear and the application was dismissed in default.

Another application was moved by the Management on 14.6.2010 for restoration of the application dated 19.3.2010. It has been mentioned in the application that due to over sight/clerical mistake the authorised representative of the Management had noted down the date as 14.5.2010 instead of 4.5.2010.

In case the AR of the Management had noted down the date as 14.5.2010 then it was mandatory to move the application on 14.5.2010. No such application was moved on 14.5.2010. The said application was moved on 14.6.2010, whereas the application was typed on 28.5.2010. The application is not supported with any affidavit. The concocted story has been put forth in the application. At the bottom of the application, it is clearly visible that the application was typed on 28.5.2010, but the same was moved in the court on 14.6.2010. The Applicant is making false excuse. There is no ground to restore the application dated 19.3.2010. As such the application dated 14.6.2010 stands dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Hence, in view of these facts it is a case where Petitioner-Management had been misusing the process of the Court and Respondent-workman is being unnecessarily harassed. Hence, no ground whatsoever is made out for setting aside the impugned order passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad and it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Labour Court in passing the impugned order and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.

Moreover, law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. 2004 (1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.