Civil Writ Petition No. 14770 of 2005 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 14770 of 2005 Date of Decision: 9.4.2008 Sub Division Officer, Lining Sub Division No.5, Barnala and Another …Petitioners Versus Gurmail Singh and Another. …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the petitioners. Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for respondent No.1-Workman Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (Oral) The management has filed this writ petition against the impugned award dated 10.5.2001 (Annexure P8) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, vide which the reference was answered ex-parte in favour of respondent No.1-workman and he was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. Brief facts of the case are that the Additional Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, referred the industrial dispute between respondent No.1-workman and the petitioners before the Civil Writ Petition No. 14770 of 2005 2 Labour Court, Patiala. The question before the Labour Court was whether the termination of services of Gurmail Singh (respondent No.1) was justified and in order? If not to what relief is he entitled? Notice of the reference was given to the petitioners and they were directed to appear in the Court on 12.12.2000 but none appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners were proceeded against ex-parte and impugned award was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the summons were issued to the Chief Engineer Lining & Planning, which is not the concerned department. Learned counsel further submits that the Chief Engineer Canal Lining was the competent authority, where the summons ought to have been served. It has further been averred that the petitioners came to know about the impugned award only when respondent No.1-workman submitted his joining report. Immediately, an application for setting aside the ex-parte award was filed before the Labour Court, which was dismissed on the ground that as the award has already been notified, therefore, the Labour Court has become functus officio. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-workman submits that the petitioners were duly served and as they have failed to appear before the Labour Court, therefore, they have been rightly proceeded against ex-parte. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that in the present case summons ought to have been issued to the Chief Engineer Canal Lining and this was the department under which respondent No.1-workman was working. But Civil Writ Petition No. 14770 of 2005 3 the summons have been issued to a different department, hence, the ex-parte impugned award (Annexure P8) cannot be sustained. In view of the aforementioned discussion, we set aside the impugned award dated 10.5.2001 (Annexure P8) as well as the order dated 30.5.2005 (Annexure P11) and remand the case back to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, for decision afresh on the merits of the case. The petitioners shall, however, pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.1-workman. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Patiala, on 10.5.2008. The writ petition stands disposed off. (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 9, 2008 “DK”