U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd vs Presiding Officer & Anr
2013 Latest Caselaw 1719 Del

$-12
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    LPA 810/2012
     U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD...... Appellant
                    Through: Mr.Gaurav Kakar, Advocate

                     versus
       PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR.                ..... Respondents
                     Through: Dr. M.Y. Khan, Adv. for R-2
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
                       ORDER

% 16.04.2013

Alleging unlawful termination of his services, the respondent no.2/ workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. Vide an ex parte award dated 1.4.1997, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent no.2 with full back-wages and continuity of service. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the award. The said petition having been dismissed vide order dated 3.10.2012, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.

2. A perusal of the record would show that on respondent no.2 filing the claim petition, the appellant filed a written statement on 24.2.1994. Thereafter, there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant and consequently it was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 3.4.1995. No

LPA 810/2012 page 1 of 3 application was filed by the appellant for setting aside the ex parte order dated 3.4.1995. After recording the evidence of the workman, the Labour Court passed the award dated 1.4.1997. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition having been dismissed vide order dated 3.10.2012.

3. During the course of hearing, we asked the learned counsel for the appellant as to what was the reason for the appellant not appearing before the Labour Court after filing the written statement to the claim petition. No satisfactory reply could be given by the counsel for the appellant, his only submission being that there was lapse on the part of the counsel. We then asked the learned counsel for the appellant as to why no application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed before the Award came to be passed by the Labour Court. Again there was no answer except the lapses attributed to the counsel. We then asked as to why no application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed before the award was published. This time also, there was no explanation from the learned counsel for the appellant.

4. In our view, in the absence of any valid explanation from the appellant for not appearing before the Labour Court and not producing any evidence in rebuttal of the claim of the workman, there would be no ground to set aside the award. The appellant had ample opportunities to contest the claim petition by cross examining the witnesses of the workman and then producing its own evidence to rebut the case set up by the workman. That

LPA 810/2012 page 2 of 3 having not been done, the evidence produced by the workman remained un- rebutted. It has come in the evidence of the respondent no.2 before the Labour Court that he had worked for more than one year with the appellant and that his services were terminated without complying with the requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court was, therefore, fully justified in directing reinstatement of the respondent no.2 with back-wages. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 3.10.2012. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.

                                                                   CHIEF JUSTICE

                                                                      V.K. JAIN, J
APRIL 16, 2013
Rd
LPA 810/2012 page                                         3 of 3