Delhi High Court
Hydro-Tech Engg Company And Anr. vs N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors. on 16 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 128 (2006) DLT 343, (2006) IIILLJ 23 Del, (2006) 143 PLR 41
Author: M Katju
Bench: M Katju, M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Markandeya Katju, C.J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.4.2005 by which the writ petition was dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same, except where necessary.
4. It appears that a reference was made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court V, Delhi. The terms of the reference are as follows:-
Whether S/Sh. Jagroop, Satya Narain, Josh Mathyu, Bhagwan Dass, Ravinder Singh, Som Nath, Jamil Khan, Surender Singh, Lallan Gupta,Sunil Choudhary, Shravan Kumar Vishavkarma and Amar Singh have been paid their dues in full & final or their services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?
5. It appears that only four workmen contested the case. The Labour Court decided the dispoute ex-parte holding that the notice sent to the management was received back with the report of refusal. The case of the management was, however, that it was never served with notice and the award was given behind its back.
6. It is alleged in the writ petition that the workmen filed a false statement of claim alleging that they were working for the last many years and the management terminated their services on 24.2.1997. The case of the management was that the workmen after taking full and final settlement from the petitioner approached the conciliation proceedings alleging that lock out had been declared by the management. The Assistant Labour Commissioner issued notice to the petitioner company on 1.4.1997 which was replied by the petitioner No. 1 on 9.4.1997. However, subsequently no notice of any kind was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was shocked to know about the ex-parte award of the Labour Court. It is alleged by the petitioner-appellant that there was collusion between the workmen and the process server and the whole matter proceeded ex-parte behind the back of the management.
7. The English translation of the report of the process server states:-
Today dated 8.2.2001 went with worker where Master/owner was available, who refused to accept the summons.
8. On the basis of the above report the Labour Court has concluded that the management refused service and he proceeded to decide the matter ex-parte. A perusal of the report of the process server shows that it is absolutely vague. It does not mention the name of the so called Master/owner or the place where he was contacted or the time. The writ petitioner has clearly stated in the writ petition that it was never served with the summons and the whole proceedings were behind its back.
9. In our opinion, no reliance can be placed on the report as it is absolutely vague and does not even mention the name of the person on whom the summons were served nor the time and place.
10. The learned Single Judge in his impugned order dated 26.4.2005 has simply stated that the process server visited the premises, but the Master/owner refused to take the notice.
11. In our opinion, the report of the process server cannot at all be relied upon for the reasons given above. Hence, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 26.4.2005 as well as the ex-parte award dated 27.2.2003 and direct the Labour Court to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned. Appeal allowed.
