Punjab-Haryana High Court
Madan Lal vs Block Development And Panchayat ... on 4 April, 2024
CWP-17851-2018 1 2024: PHHC:045882 220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17851-2018 DECIDED ON: 04.04.2024 MADANLAL aaa PETITIONER VERSUS BLOCK DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT OFFICER AND ORS ace RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH. Present: Mr. Vineet Yadav, Advocate, for Mr. Narender Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satish Singla, AAG Haryana. SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioner -- Madan Lal, aged about 44 years, filed present writ petition by assailing award dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurugram, vide which reference No.247 of 2014, had been answered in favour of him by awarding a lump sum compensation amount of Rs.80,000/- to be paid by the respondents.
2. Court is informed that in fact, award in question before this Court is an ex parte award against the Management and later on, application for setting aside of ex parte proceedings was filed and vide order dated 02.06.2017, complete proceedings were referred to the jurisdiction of learned Labour Court-I, Gurugram.
3. Order dated 02.06.2017 is reproduced here under:-
"Madan Lal V/s BDPO, Narnaul LAVISHA 2024.04.05 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-17851-2018 2 2024: PHHC:045882 M/04/16 Present: Sh. Brijesh Mishra AR for Applicant/Management. Sh. Karan Singh AR for Workaman.
No settlement has been effected. Parties impressed upon for the disposal of the pending application. It is application of the respondent praying for setting-aside the exparte order. While submitting thereupon, learned AR for respondent has mentioned that the respondent marked the presence before the Labour Court on 19.12.2014 when the matter was adjourned to 13.02.2015. However, on that date, it was brought to the notice of the parties that the Labour Court- 1, Gurgaon has no territorial jurisdication of adjudication as the area of Mohindergarh is lies with the Labour Court-ll, Gurgaon. It is submitted that the respondent did not appear in Labour Court thereafter under the bonafide impression that fresh notice from Labour Court-II shall be received by him. In the given circumstances, the absence of respondent was not intentional but bonafide.
Keeping in view the said submission and_ the notification of the Labour Department, Haryana area marking the jurisdication of the various Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Courts constituted in the state of Haryana, it is observed area of district falls within the jurisdiction of Labour Court-II, Gurgaon. Matter be, therefore, sent to the department for appropriate allocation. The file of present claim petition complete in all respect including the file which has been consigned to records shall be sent to the department. The parties shall be served afresh after the matter will be allocated to Court to competent jurisdiction.
S/D Presiding Officer, Indl. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-l, Gurgaon, 02.06.2017"
4. In view of the said circumstances, counsel for the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the present writ petition with liberty to enable him to seek remedy available, as per law.
5. Accordingly, present writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as sought and recorded here above.
(SANJAY VASHISTH) 04.04.2024 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned v Yes/No Whether reportable ¥es/v No LAVISHA 2024.04.05 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh