M/S. R. M. Udyog vs Secretary (Labour) & Others.
2010 Latest Caselaw 4990 Del

 *           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 +                     W.P.(C) No. 358/1997

 %                                       28th October, 2010

 M/S. R. M. UDYOG                        ...... Petitioner

                             Through:    Mr. J.K. Sharma,
                                         Advocate.
                       VERSUS

 SECRETARY (LABOUR) & OTHERS.            ....Respondents

                             Through:    None.

 CORAM:
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

 1.   Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
      allowed to see the judgment?

 2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not?


 3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (Oral)


1.           The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of

Constitution of India challenges the ex-parte Award dated

26.2.1996 passed by the Labour Court whereby it was directed

that the workman will be reinstated with full back wages.

2.           The only ground pressed by the counsel for the

petitioner is that the Labour Court gravely erred in proceeding

exparte against the petitioner because in fact there was no


WP(C) No. 358/1997                                           Page 1 of 4
 service on the petitioner before the Labour Court.               Learned

counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the complete

order sheets till the stage the petitioner allegedly appeared

through one of its employees.           A reading of the order sheets

before the Labour Court dated 17.2.1993, 9.7.1993, 4.10.1993,

4.1,1994, 22.3.1994, 29.6.1994, 5.9.1994 and 7.11.1994 shows

that the case was fixed for service of the management and the

management was not served. The only relevant order thereafter

is the order dated 9.1.1995 and which reads as under:

     "9.1.1995
     Present:          Workman in person.

            Lawyers are on strike. Management not served.
     Let the management be served by affixation for
     21.3.1995.
                                      Sd/-
                                    POLC VII

     Present:          Shri Harjinder Singh, Service Engineer.

            At this stage file taken up again.
            Copy of claim given. For W/s to come up on the
     date already fixed.

     Sd/-
     Harjinder Singh
     9.1.1995                                   Sd/-
                                              POLC VII"

3.           It   is     therefore   clear   that    on   9.1.1995,    the

management was not served as per the earlier part of the order

and the later part of the order shows that one Sh. Harjinder Singh

allegedly appeared for the petitioner.              The counsel for the

WP(C) No. 358/1997                                               Page 2 of 4
 petitioner has urged that the petitioner concern had closed down

in 1993 and therefore there is no question of any employee

appearing on behalf of it before the Labour Court. He has further

drawn the attention of this court to the visiting card which was

taken by the Labour Court in proof of the fact that employee was

allegedly the employee of the petitioner.      A reference to the

visiting cards shows that the employee was not the employee of

the petitioner M/s R.M Udyog, because the visiting card is of

Harjinder Singh, Service Engineer of M/s Auto Ignition Private Ltd.

4.           Even before this court, the respondent no.4/workman

has not appeared in spite of service.        The address of the

workman before the Labour Court and this court for service was

through the General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union and which was

served as per the summons appearing in the record of this court

on 5.9.1997. The respondent no.4 has therefore not appeared in

spite of due service in this court.

5.           Though the matter is of 1992 vintage and the

workman was allegedly terminated on 15.11.1991, in view of the

fact that the petitioner was not served before the Labour Court, I

have no option but to set aside the Award and remand the case

back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision in accordance with

law. This Court is persuaded to exercise its powers under Articles

226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on account of the fact

WP(C) No. 358/1997                                         Page 3 of 4
 that the order sheets of the Labour Court clearly demonstrate

that no service was effected on the petitioner and the person who

appeared on behalf of the petitioner was not the employee of the

petitioner. It is trite that since valuable rights of the parties are

affected in any litigation, it is necessary that before proceeding

exparte against the person, such person must be duly served.

There is no service as required by law upon the petitioner before

the Labour Court in the facts and circumstances of this case.

6.           The impugned Award dated 26.2.1996 is therefore set

aside and the parties are directed to appear before the

concerned Labour Court on 29.11.2010. The concerned Labour

Court will issue appropriate notices to the respondent no.4/

workman herein before proceeding further with the matter. No

notice need be issued to the petitioner/management as the

present order is passed in the presence of the petitioner and

whose counsel undertakes to appear before the Labour Court on

29.11.2010.

             With    the aforesaid observations, the petition is

disposed of.




OCTOBER 28, 2010                       VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne