Delhi High Court
Campari vs P.O. Labour Court-Ix And Anr. on 13 August, 2004
Equivalent citations: 113 (2004) DLT 331, (2005) ILLJ 212 Del
Author: M B Lokur
Bench: M B Lokur
ORDER
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. A reference was made in 1998 to the learned Labour Court with regard to the alleged illegal termination of the respondent-workman,
2. Summons was issued to the petitioner on 7th January, 1999 but it appears that the summons was issued in the name of M/s. Campari Exports while the name of the petitioner is said to be Campari. The summons, which was sent by Registered A.D. post, was refused by the petitioner.
3. In view of this refusal, the learned Labour Court proceeded ex parte against the petitioner by an order dated 14th May, 1999. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court recorded the evidence of the respondent-workman and passed an ex parte award on 9th August, 2001.
4. Much later, the petitioner came to know about the passing of the ex parte award and, therefore, it moved an application on 13th November, 2002 under the provisions of Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 for setting aside the ex parte order as well as the ex parte award. The application was heard by the learned Labour Court, which noted that there was a mistake in the description of the petitioner but the description was of a very minor nature. It was also mentioned that the petitioner has not placed anything on record to show that it was always known as "M/s. Campari" and not as "M/s. Campari Exports".
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the records of this case as well as certain documents to show that the petitioner was never known as "M/s. Campari Exports" although it is Export house.
6. It seems to me that the mistake was of a very minor nature and the petitioner is trying to take advantage of this error. Nevertheless, it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is given an opportunity to contest his case on merits.
7. However, I also think that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of a minor error having been committed. Consequently, I am of the view that it will be appropriate if the petitioner is put to certain terms before it is allowed to contest the matter. Looking to the amount of back wages that has been awarded by the learned Labour Court, it will be appropriate if the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with the learned Labour Court within a period of one month from today to enable it to contest the matter on merits. The learned Labour Court will keep this amount in a fixed deposit till the disposal of the reference.
8. The respondent is entitled to be compensated for the delay caused by the petitioner for which costs of Rs. 10,000/-be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-workman.
9. Learned Counsel for the respondent-workman has referred to several judgments including Kamala Nehru Memorial Hospital v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Allahabad, 2000 Allahabad Law Journal 483; Sadhu Ram v. Delhi Transport Corporation,; D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and Ors., AIR 1984 SC 153 and Harnam Singh and Ors. v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors., .
10. In the given facts of this case, it is not necessary to deal with these decisions. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the above terms.
11. The parties will appear before the learned Labour Court on 16th September, 2004.
12. The Labour Court will proceed to hear the matter only if the petitioner deposits the amount as well as pays the costs on the next date of hearing.
dusty.
C.M. No. 11022/2003 also stands disposed of.
