IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8283 of 1989 Date of decision:17.12.2009 M/s Aggarwal B.K.O. Jhallaur, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur. ...Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another. ...Respondents II. Civil Writ Petition No.8437 of 1989 M/s Aggarwal B.K.O. Jhallaur, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur. ...Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another. ...Respondents III. Civil Writ Petition No.8441 of 1989 M/s Aggarwal B.K.O. Jhallaur, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur. ...Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another. ...Respondents IV. Civil Writ Petition No.8444 of 1989 M/s Aggarwal B.K.O. Jhallaur, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur. ...Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another. ...Respondents Civil Writ Petition No.8283 of 1989 - 2 - V. Civil Writ Petition No.8445 of 1989 M/s Aggarwal B.K.O. Jhallaur, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur. ...Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Gurdip Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. (Mr. KVS Kang, Advocate with Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for the petitioner only in CWP No.8283 of 1989) None for the respondents. ---- 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 batch of writ petitions arise out of the awards passed in favour of the respective workmen, who claimed that they had completed more than 240 days of continuous service, but they were terminated from service illegally without complying with the statutory mandate of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court had recorded the finding that despite notice, the management had refused to accept service and set it ex parte. The ex parte awards that came to be passed were challenged by the management subsequently through application for setting aside the same on a complaint that the postal services had been falsely procured and the non-appearance was not deliberate. The Labour Court, however, dismissed the application to set aside the ex parte award on the ground that the awards had also been subsequently published in Civil Writ Petition No.8283 of 1989 - 3 - the gazette and it had become functus officio. The application could not, therefore, be entertained by the Labour Court and on such a reasoning, all the applications for setting aside the ex parte awards had been dismissed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- management states that all the workmen were seasoned workers in brick kiln and they were not entitled to treat themselves as regular employees to seek reinstatement. It was the further contention that the Labour Court did not examine the issue of a cause for non-appearance, but dismissed it summarily on the ground that after the publication of the award, it had become functus officio. 3. The reasoning of the Labour Court in dismissing the application cannot be faulted in view of the settled position that ex parte awards cannot be set aside by the Court after the publication of the award and the appropriate remedy would have been only to approach the High Court for reliefs. The case has been filed in the year 1989 and after obtaining an order of stay, it became convenient for the management to sit comfortably on the order of stay and evinced no interest to have the case listed for hearing. Unfortunately after 20 years, when the case is posted for hearing, none of the respondents is present and the counsel for the petitioner presses for argument the contention that there is no finding by the Labour Court that there was no valid service and the Labour Court had not satisfied itself whether the absence of the petitioner was for any justifiable cause. If the contention was that the petitioner had not refused the service and the postal endorsement had been wrongly made Civil Writ Petition No.8283 of 1989 - 4 - in connivance, such a contention could not have been taken before the Labour Court after the award was passed and published. With complete lack of evidence on my file whether there was a justification for setting the petitioner ex parte and for treating the petitioner as having refused service, it is not possible to ascertain the correctness of the decision to set the petitioner ex parte after this length of time. Even records of the Labour Court have not been secured before this Court and if such an opportunity must be granted to the management for having all the awards to be re-agitated on merits, it ought to be done only on costs to be awarded against the management. The management ought to bear responsibility for its lackadaisical approach and in not securing before this Court any material that there had been any justification for its absence on the day when the case was posted. If the back wages were to be paid for all that years, it should run to several lakhs. Even if the benefits of Section 17-B had to be afforded to the workmen, even that would mean making liable the management to several lakhs. It is still a matter of regret that there has been no representation for the workmen and that they had not availed to themselves the benefit which could otherwise avail to them, if appropriate affidavits had been filed to make the claims under Section 17-B. 4. The only recompense that the workman shall be entitled to in order that the management has the benefit of having the ex parte awards set aside shall be that it shall pay Rs.20,000/- as costs in every case within a period of 4 weeks from the date of passing of the order as a condition precedent for having the ex parte order set aside. The amount Civil Writ Petition No.8283 of 1989 - 5 - shall be deposited to the credit of the respective case numbers assigned before the Labour Court itself and if the amount is not deposited as directed, the ex parte awards, which were issued already shall stand confirmed. If the amount is deposited, the Labour Court shall issue notice to all the respective workmen, permit them to withdraw the amounts without any security and make an adjudication as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 5. The writ petitions are disposed of as such. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 17.12.2009 sanjeev