IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 22830 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 09th December, 2011. M/s NPI Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner through Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad & Anr. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner – Management is aggrieved by the ex- parte award dated 14.08.2008 passed by the Labour Court-III, Faridabad reinstating the respondent-workman with full back-wages and continuity of service. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 21.05.2007 passed by the above-said Forum proceeding against it ex-parte. The admitted facts are that on receipt of a reference, the Labour Court sent notice to the petitioner which was duly received. The petitioner-Management filed its reply through a counsel who kept on appearing. The representative of the petitioner – Management, who was an Advocate, however, did not appear on 21.05.2007 though the case was called twice. The Labour Court recorded the ex- parte evidence of the workman and it was after more than one year that the reference was answered in favour of the workman vide the impugned award dated 14.08.2008. The petitioner – Management claims to have come to know of the ex-parte award on 23.11.2011 when 'on inquiry it was gathered' that the workman had filed a complaint under Sections 29/30 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Director of the Management in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad. CWP No. 22830 of 2011. ::-2-:: I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner who urged that the non-appearance of the petitioner-Management was for the reasons beyond its control. It is argued that the Management, having engaged a counsel legitimately expected that he will keep on appearing and would correctly apprise it of the status of the proceedings. It is true that on engagement of a counsel and on his actual appearance in Court, a litigant can be said to have taken adequate steps to defend himself. This, however, does not absolve such party to go to slumber and not to even inquire or find out from its representative/counsel about a pending case for years. In the instant case, the petitioner's own case is that their representative stopped appearing w.e.f. 21.05.2007 and it is after a period of more than four years that it claims to have come to know about the ex-parte award passed against it. The averments regarding the source of information or how it gathered the knowledge are extremely evasive and vague and do not inspire confidence. It is apparent that the petitioner- Management acted negligently and is responsible for the consequences. No case to interference with the impugned award at this stage is made out. Dismissed. December 09, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE