C.W.P No.6250 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.6250 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.07.2009 M/s Gurdayal Shyam Lal Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. Y.M. Bhagirath, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the award passed by the Labour Court on a reference sought by the workman that the termination was bad. The challenge to the award is on two counts. One, notice had not been served at any point of time. Two, the name of the party had also been wrongly made in the petition. When the name of the company was M/s Gurdayal Shyam Lal Pvt. Ltd., the claim statement had referred to the party as M/s Gurdayal Lal Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, the notice had not been served. It is noticed from the copy of the zimni orders placed before the Court that the Labour Court has observed on 17.07.2006 that registered notice issued on 01.06.2006 had not been received back to this Court. The Court had, therefore, C.W.P No.6250 of 2009 -2- drawn a presumption that the registered notice had been actually served. 2. The presumption of receipt of registered notice will not avail any longer when the addressee denies that the notice was served. The onus of proof shall then on the person at whose instance the registered office was sent. This issue has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puwada Venkateswara Rao Vs. Chidamana Venkataramana AIR 1976 SC 869 where considering the effect of the provision of the General Clauses Act relating to presumptions in respect of registered notice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the presumption would be applied only so long as there was no denial by the addressee. If the addressee joins issue on the aspect of non-service, the presumption shall still not be applied. In this case to a definite averment in the petition that notice had not been served at all, it would be no answer to state in reply that the general presumption has to be applied. 3. The ex parte award issued, under the circumstances, will not be justified and interest of justice would require that the same is set aside and the management is given an opportunity to contest the claim statement on merits. 4. The award of the Labour Court is, under the circumstances, set aside with liberty given to the management to file its written statement and contest the case on merits. Having regard to the fact that the reference had been made in the year 2006, it is requested that the Labour Court takes up the case and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. C.W.P No.6250 of 2009 -3- Parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 20.08.2009. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the workman is entitled to payment under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The award is being now set aside and direction for disposal is made. To this date, there has been no application claiming any benefit under Section 17-B. The benefits of Section 17-B cannot be entertained at the mere asking, which has also to be on the affidavit that the person is not otherwise gainfully employed. Learned counsel seeks for relief on the ground that she is intending to file such an application. The plea is rejected. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 29, 2009 Pankaj*