Punjab-Haryana High Court
Madan Lal vs Block Development And Panchayat ... on 4 April, 2024
CWP-17851-2018 1 2024: PHHC:045882
220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-17851-2018
DECIDED ON: 04.04.2024
MADANLAL aaa PETITIONER
VERSUS
BLOCK DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT OFFICER AND
ORS ace RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: Mr. Vineet Yadav, Advocate, for
Mr. Narender Yadav, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Satish Singla, AAG Haryana.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioner -- Madan Lal, aged about 44 years, filed present
writ petition by assailing award dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure P-2) passed
by learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurugram, vide
which reference No.247 of 2014, had been answered in favour of him by
awarding a lump sum compensation amount of Rs.80,000/- to be paid by
the respondents.
2. Court is informed that in fact, award in question before this
Court is an ex parte award against the Management and later on,
application for setting aside of ex parte proceedings was filed and vide
order dated 02.06.2017, complete proceedings were referred to the
jurisdiction of learned Labour Court-I, Gurugram.
3. Order dated 02.06.2017 is reproduced here under:-
"Madan Lal V/s BDPO, Narnaul
authenticity of this order/judgment
CWP-17851-2018 2 2024: PHHC:045882
M/04/16
Present: Sh. Brijesh Mishra AR for Applicant/Management.
Sh. Karan Singh AR for Workaman.
No settlement has been effected. Parties impressed
upon for the disposal of the pending application. It is
application of the respondent praying for setting-aside the
exparte order. While submitting thereupon, learned AR for
respondent has mentioned that the respondent marked the
presence before the Labour Court on 19.12.2014 when the
matter was adjourned to 13.02.2015. However, on that date, it
was brought to the notice of the parties that the Labour Court-
1, Gurgaon has no territorial jurisdication of adjudication as
the area of Mohindergarh is lies with the Labour Court-ll,
Gurgaon. It is submitted that the respondent did not appear in
Labour Court thereafter under the bonafide impression that
fresh notice from Labour Court-II shall be received by him. In
the given circumstances, the absence of respondent was not
intentional but bonafide.
Keeping in view the said submission and_ the
notification of the Labour Department, Haryana area marking
the jurisdication of the various Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Courts constituted in the state of Haryana, it is observed area
of district falls within the jurisdiction of Labour Court-II,
Gurgaon. Matter be, therefore, sent to the department for
appropriate allocation. The file of present claim petition
complete in all respect including the file which has been
consigned to records shall be sent to the department. The
parties shall be served afresh after the matter will be allocated
to Court to competent jurisdiction.
S/D
Presiding Officer,
Indl. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-l,
Gurgaon, 02.06.2017"
4. In view of the said circumstances, counsel for the petitioner
seeks withdrawal of the present writ petition with liberty to enable him to
seek remedy available, as per law.
5. Accordingly, present writ petition stands dismissed as
withdrawn, with liberty as sought and recorded here above.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
04.04.2024 JUDGE
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned v Yes/No
Whether reportable ¥es/v No
authenticity of this order/judgment
