Amity International School vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1 Gurgaon and Another

Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioner impugns the ex-parte award passed against it. The Labour Court, which was seized with a reference claimed by respondent No. 2, and vide which it was con-eluded that his services had been wrongly terminated. The petitioner was served but did not appear leading to an adverse order being passed against it on 6.5.2008. Even thereafter it seems that no attempt was made by the petitioner to rectify the situation and move an appropriate application to join the proceedings or to impugn the order dated 6.52008. This led to the final conclusion of the proceedings in the year 2009. Aggrieved by the said award the instant petition has been filed. During the course of proceedings this Court had desired of the petitioner to file an additional affidavit showing that it was prevented from participating in the proceedings before the learned Labour Court on a cause which could be termed to be sufficient. An affidavit of Mrs. Anuradha Handa, Principal, Amity International School, Sector 46, Gurgaon has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in which it has been stated that one Col.(Retd.) Subhash Chander was the Administrative Officer of the petitioner and he upon receiving the notice of the proceedings stated for 6.5.2008 did not inform the petitioner and it is because of the lapse of the said Officer that the petitioner was precluded from participating In the proceedings before the Labour Court.

There is no denial to the fact that the Labour Court was well within its jurisdiction to proceed against the party for that purpose before It provided It was satisfied that despite proper service the said party had chosen not to appear. There is also no denial to the fact that the petitioner was not served. The consistent case pleaded by the petitioner before this Court is that even though service was effected upon the petitioner, yet it was because of the fault of its employee who did not Inform It of the proceedings that such a situation has resulted.

In the considered opinion of the Court such an explanation can only be termed to be self serving and does not inspire confidence so as to be termed to be a sufficient cause preventing a person from not appearing before a forum. Ordinarily, this Court would have been in a better position to appreciate the difficulty of the petitioner if an affidavit of the defaulting employee, namely Col. (Retd.) Subhash Chander had been placed on record. However, the material on record suggests that he is no longer in its employment and had probably left the employment of the petitioner even prior to the initiation of ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner.

Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opin-1 ion that interest of justice would be met if the peti-tioner is put to terms while setting aside the impugned award so as to enable it to participate in the; proceedings so that a just decision can be arrived at.

The respondent-workmen, who has been served, has not appeared before this Court when the matter was taken up for consideration. No reply to the petition or to the averments made in the affidavit has been filed. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts cumulatively, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned exparte award against the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 25,000 before the Labour Court which shall be disbursed to the respondent-workman. The Labour Court upon receipt of the copy of this order shall issue appropriate notice to the petitioner and the respondent-workman and dispose of the reference thereafter in accordance with law.