Sarvatra Integrated Service Pvt. Ltd. vs Presiding Officer and Others

Amit Rawal, J—Challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award dated 11.11.2014 (Annexure P-5) and the order dated 27.01.2015 (Annexure P-8), whereby an ex parte reference has been answered in favour of the workman and the application, filed beyond a period of 30 days of publication of the Award, has been dismissed. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Management contends that the workman did not report for duty on 10.07.2011 and it is a case of abandonment. He further submits that the workman was taken on contract by the International Airport through the petitioner-Management and therefore, the Gurgaon Court has the jurisdiction and the reference Court ought to have declined the request on this ground alone.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book.

There is no dispute with regard to principles of invoking territorial jurisdiction as per Sections 19 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and jurisdiction of a particular place can be invoked where person resides. Admittedly, the official address of the petitioner-Management is of Gurgaon and therefore, the matter has rightly been referred by the Government to the Labour Court in respect of the dispute of alleged termination. In case, the workman had abandoned the job and nothing prevented the Management to serve show-cause notice/charge-sheet upon the workman at the last available address. Once the workman had joined enquiry allegedly initiated at the behest of the Management, he would have at liberty to rebut the charge and if otherwise, the Management ~ could have proceeded him ex-parte, but no such procedure has been followed.

In view of the ratio culled out by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 JT 617 : (1993) 2 LLJ 696 : (1993) 3 SCALE 39 : (1993) 3 SCC 259 : (1993) 3 SCR 930 , it was incumbent upon the Management to hold enquiry by serving charge-sheet. No exercise has been done. There is no fault, much less, perversity in the Award/order. No material has been placed on record that the Management had at any point of time issued show cause notice to the workman intimating that he had absented voluntarily. In view of the aforementioned observations, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed.