IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7544 of 2008 (O/M). Date of Decision : April 17, 2009. The Jatoli Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Limited, Jatoli, Hodel, District Faridabad. ....... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad, and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. R.C. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the ex-parte award dated 21.04.2004 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the Labour Court-II, Faridabad, as well as order dated 27.03.2008 (Annexure-P-5), filed by the petitioner-society for setting aside the ex-parte award. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner-society that Shri Dinesh Kumar, who had put in appearance on behalf of petitioner-society before the Labour Court, was not an authorised representative. No authority letter was placed on record by him which would justify his appearance before the Labour Court. According to the records of the Labour Court, Dinesh Kumar, had put in appearance on 24.09.2003 when the case was adjourned to 29.01.2004. On the said date, none had put in appearance on behalf of the C.W.P. No. 7544 of 2008. petitioner-society, leading to the petitioner-society being proceeded against ex-parte, vide award dated 21.04.2004. Ultimately, the proceedings culminated into passing of the award dated 21.04.2004 being ex-parte. Counsel for the petitioner-society contends that the services of the respondent-workman were terminated for the reason that resolution dated 16.01.1998 was passed by the petitioner-society, vide which the appointment of respondent-workman stood annulled by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon, vide order dated 22.10.2002. He on this basis contends that there were justifiable reasons for terminating the services of the respondent-workman and if given a chance, the petitioner-society would be able to justify its stand with regard to the termination of the respondent-workman. He on this basis submits that non appearance by the petitioner-society before the Labour Court, was neither intentional nor deliberate but since none had put in appearance, therefore, the award has come into being. He further prays that it would be in the interest of justice, if an opportunity be given to the petitioner-society to defend itself before the Labour Court. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman contends that it has come on record that the petitioner-society was duly served and there was no reason for the petitioner-society not to appear before the Labour Court. The petitioner-society was required to be cautious and vigilant enough in projecting its stand before the Labour Court. Having not done so, the award passed by the Labour Court, is fully justified and is based on the evidence produced by the respondent-workman before the Labour Court. She further contends that the petitioner-society has not been able to satisfy their stand with regard to non compliance of -2- C.W.P. No. 7544 of 2008. Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. That being the position, the award deserves to be sustained. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is a case where the Cooperative Society is a petitioner before this Court and it is a common knowledge that the Society works through their employees. It is more like any other Government organisation where there is no personal interest involved. There is slackness on the part of the employees for not taking responsible acts on time as is apparent from the records that the person who had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner-society was although an employee of the Society and not an authorised representative but still he did not intimate the Society with regard to next date of hearing of the case before the Labour Court. This impersonal attitude of an employee has led the petitioner-Society being proceeded against ex-parte. In the given facts and circumstances of the present case, an opportunity needs to be given to the petitioner-society to contest the claim of the respondent-workman. The benefit which the respondent-workman is entitled to by all means, he should get but nevertheless because of non appearance of the petitioner-society, ex-parte proceedings having been taken against them, the respondent-workman has been granted the benefit on the basis of the evidence produced by him. It would be just and fair that an opportunity be given to the petitioner-society to contest the claim of the respondent-workman and therefore, the ex-parte award passed in favour of the respondent-workman deserves to be set aside. It can be safely said that there is no fault on the part of the respondent-workman and therefore, he is -3- C.W.P. No. 7544 of 2008. entitled to be compensated by way of imposition of costs on the petitioner- society. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, ex-parte award dated 21.04.2004 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the Labour Court-II, Faridabad, is hereby set aside, but this shall be subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs by the petitioner-society to be paid to the respondent- workman on the first date of appearance before the Labour Court. There is an application moved by the respondent-workman under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and an affidavit dated 06.09.2008 has also been filed wherein he has stated that he has not been gainfully employed. He has further stated that he is not working in any factory or establishment and he is un-employed since the date of his termination i.e. October, 2002.. No rebuttal to the said application has come forth on behalf of the petitioner-society. In this view of the matter, the respondent-workman is entitled to last drawn wages from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 05.05.2008 till date. The payment of last drawn wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, be made to the respondent-workman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Faridabad, on 25.05.2009. The Labour Court, Faridabad, is directed to decide the case at the earliest. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 17, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter – Yes/No. -4-