M/S Plywood House vs Presiding Officer Labour ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 2390 Del

              *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            W.P.(C) 5242/2003

%                                                Date of decision: 4th May, 2010

M/S PLYWOOD HOUSE                                                 ..... Petitioner
                             Through: Petitioner in person.


                                      Versus

PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-I, & ORS.                       ..... Respondents
                   Through: None.


CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.      Whether reporters of Local papers may
        be allowed to see the judgment? No.

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?     No.

3.      Whether the judgment should be reported
        in the Digest? No.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner employer impugns the award dated 8th November, 2002 of

the Labour Court on the following reference:

"Whether Shri Ram Raj Mishra has left the job after full and final settlement of his accounts or his services have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

2. The petitioner employer was proceeded ex parte before the Labour Court.

The Labour Court in the absence of the petitioner employer and on the basis of

the uncontroverted, unchallenged and unrebutted statement of the respondent

no.3 workman held against the petitioner employer and found the respondent

no.3 workman entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back

wages from the date of termination till reinstatement.

3. Aggrieved from the award, the present writ petition was preferred. This

court while issuing notice of the petition, vide order dated 22nd August, 2003

stayed the operation of the award aforesaid and the said order has remained in

force till now.

4. The counsel for the respondent no.3 workman appeared before this court

on 13th April, 2004 and sought time to file the counter affidavit. The counter

affidavit was filed and to which rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner

employer. However, the counsel for the respondent no.3 workman stopped

appearing thereafter and in the circumstances the interim order was made

absolute on 27th July, 2005 and the respondent no.3 workman was proceeded

against ex parte on 8th March, 2006. The writ petition was thereafter dismissed

for non prosecution. The petitioner employer applied for restoration. Notice of

the restoration application was again issued to the contesting respondent No.3

workman. However, the respondent no.3 workman remained unserved and

finally was ordered to be served by publication. Publication was effected and

since the respondent no.3 workman failed to appear, he was again proceed

against ex parte and the writ petition was restored to its original position.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, since in the absence of the respondent no.3

workman the question of enforcement/implementation of the award of

reinstatement and payment of back wages does not arise, the petition is entitled

to succeed. The petitioner employer has also contended that it was wrongly

proceeded ex parte before the Labour Court and is entitled to contest the dispute

on merits. However, no purpose would be served in remanding the matter to the

Labour Court since the respondent no.3 workman has chosen not to contest this

petition and to appear before this court. Inspite of the operation of the award

having been stayed no application under Section 17B of the ID Act has been

filed. No purpose would be served in relegating the parties again to the Labour

Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The award

dated 8th November, 2002 is set aside/quashed. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 4th May, 2010 M