High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 03 UK CK 0039

Mantri / Secretary, Khestriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Gauchar, District Chamoli vs Labour Commissioner & Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 13 March 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vipin Sanghi, CJ
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 143 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 258 words

Vipin Sanghi, J

1) The present petition has been preferred, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to assail the ex-parte Award dated 16.02.2022, passed by the learned Labour Court, Dehradun, in Adjudication Case No. 01 of 2020, as well as the order of publication dated 04.03.2022, passed by learned Labour Commissioner, Haldwani, in pursuance of the aforesaid Award.

2) The case of the petitioner / employer is that, the petitioner never appeared before the Labour Court despite issuance of notice, on account of the “Covid Situation”. A perusal of the order-sheet of the Labour Court show that on 28.02.2020, the petitioner did not appear, despite issuance of notice by registered post. Consequently, the Labour Court treated the petitioner / employer as served, and granted time to file the written statement. The matter was adjourned to 13.04.2020.

3) The petitioner did not appear either on 13.04.2020, or even thereafter on 08.05.2020, 03.06.2020, 23.07,2020, 05.09.2020, 09.10.2020, 06.11.2020, 07.12.2020, 11.01.2021, 05.02.2021, 04.03.2021, 01.042021, 30.04.2021, 08.06.2021, 15.07.2021, 23.08.2021, 30.09.2021, 17.11.2021, 30.11.2021, 04.01.2022, 31.01.2022, 11.02.2022 and 16.02.2022, when the matter was heard ex-parte, and reserved for Award. The aforesaid dates show that the said period covers the time when the Covid pandemic were prevalent, but also other period when Covid pandemic has receded, and near normalcy had been restored.

4) I am, therefore, not convinced that the petitioner had sufficient cause of non-appearance before the Labour Court for such a long period of time.

5) I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned Award. The petitioner is, accordingly, dismissed.