Ram Nath Mehlawat, Advocates vs The State of Haryana and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This writ petition is filed to quash the award passed by the Labour Court, Faridabad in Reference No. 3 of 1981 dated 12.11.1981.

According to the 3rd respondent, he was employed on 25.4.1979 by the petitioner who is the proprietor of M/s Jan Hirdya Weekly, Rewari. According to him, his services were terminated illegally on 25.9.1979 without giving any reasons. Thereupon he raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court decided the matter against the petitioner ex-parte on the ground that the respondent (petitioner herein) avoided service of summons and set aside the order of termination and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the summons were not served on the petitioner. Therefore, the ex-parte proceedings are liable to be set aside. He further contended that even, on merits, the 3rd respondent has no case as on his own showing he has not completed 240 days in the year preceding to the date of his termination.

Admittedly, the notices were not served on the petitioner. It is clear from the order of the Labour Court itself that the notices sent to the parties for 23.1.1981 were returned with the postal endorsement that no such parties exist at the addresses given. Thereupon the Labour Court dismissed the reference, but an application was filed by the workman on 7.2.1981. The order of dismissal of the reference was set aside on 26.3.1981 by the Labour Court and directed the issue of notice to the petitioner for 9.4.1981. But as the postal acknowledgment was not received back, further notice was directed to be issued by regd. post with acknowledgement due for 24.4.1981. On that day, one S.K. Yadav appeared for the management and the matter was posted to 8.5.1981, but on 8.5.1981 there was no Presiding Officer posted in the Labour Court at Faridabad. Therefore, the Labour Court directed the issuance of notices to the petitioner-management, but the notices were not served by that date. Therefore, fresh notices were issued for 8.7.1981. The regd. letter sent to the petitioner, was returned with an endorsement that the petitioner was away for a long time. Then fresh notices were issued on 6.8.1981 for 28.8.1981. The same were also returned jwith the report that the petitioner was away for a long time. Then the Labour Court directed issuance of the dasti summons. According to the Labour Court, the peon went to Rewari for the service of summons, but he made an endorsement that the respondent (petitioner herein) avoided service of summons and ran away from his office on seeing him. On the basis of the endorsement of the Peon of the Court, the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte on 7.9.1981 and fixed the case for 8.9.1981 for recording the evidence of the workman. On 8.9.1981 the evidence of the workman (3rd. respondent) was recorded ex-parte and the matter was adjourned for passing the award. Meanwhile the petitioner Management made an application on 6.10.1981 for setting aside the ex-parte order but that application was rejected by the Labour Court on 3.11.1981 and the ex-parte award was passed on 12.11.1981.

From the above narration of facts, it is clear that the petitioner-management was not served with any notice before proceeding against ex-parte. The Labour Court did not record the statement of the Court Peon who went to serve the summons on the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner evaded service of summons. Before proceeding against the petitioner ex-parte, the Labour Court ought to have recorded the statement of Court Peon who was deputed to serve the notices on the petitioner. The postal endorsements clearly show that the petitioner was away since a long time at the given address. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court erred in refusing to set aside the ex-parte order. The Labour Court should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce his evidence when an application was made to it for setting aside the ex-parte order even before the award was passed.

The Labour Court has also not considered whether the termination of the services of the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the 3rd respondent, he was appointed on 25.4.1979 and his services were terminated on 25.9.1979. Thus, on his own showing the 3rd respondent did not work for a period of 240 days in the year. The Labour Court has not considered whether the termination order is in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has not given any reasons for coming to the conclusion that the termination of the workman is not proper and justified and not in order. I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case as I am of the view that this is a fit case for remanding the matter to the Labour Court, Faridabad for disposal afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead such evidence as they may deem fit.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the case is remanded to the Labour Court Faridabad to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead such evidence as they may deem proper.

The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court Faridabad on 4.4.1997. However, there will be no order as to costs.