IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.16968 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 20.05.2010 Food Corporation of India ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Jaishree Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 10.6.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the respondent-workman holding him entitled to reinstatement within one month from the date of publication of the Award along with entire back wages. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court had, vide order dated 21.10.2008, closed the evidence of the petitioner-Food Corporation of India i.e. on the same day on which the evidence of the respondent-workman was closed, merely on the ground that the authorized representative of the petitioner-FCI had failed to appear before it on the said day. She contends that because of the passing of the said illegal order, the petitioner-Management could not lead any evidence before the Labour Court. Her submission is that the Labour Court has misread the evidence C.W.P.No.16968 of 2009 -2- which had been produced before it by the respondent-workman and, therefore, no benefit could have been granted to the respondent-workman. Her further contention is that the respondent-workman was appointed through a Contractor Gurnam Singh but the petitioner-Management could not prove this fact because of the order dated 21.10.2008. She, on this basis prays for setting aside of the Award dated 10.6.2009 and remanding of the case to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication by giving the petitioner- Management an opportunity to lead its evidence. Notice of motion was issued by this Court on 17.12.2009. The case came up for hearing on 22.3.2010 when despite service, neither any one had put in appearance on behalf of workman-respondent No.2-Lal Singh nor did the respondent-workman appear in person and accordingly, he was proceeded against ex parte and the case was posted for arguments for today. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is true that the evidence of the petitioner was closed vide order dated 21.10.2008 i.e. on the same day on which the evidence of the respondent-workman was closed. This happened due to non-appearance of the petitioner-Management before the Labour Court. Thereafter, before the Labour Court, the petitioner-Management has been appearing but no effort was made for getting the order dated 21.10.2008 recalled nor any prayer was made before the Labour Court for producing evidence before it. Even a prayer for grant of an opportunity to it for adducing the evidence, was not made. The order having attained finality and the petitioner-Management C.W.P.No.16968 of 2009 -3- having accepted the same, cannot now be permitted to raise this ground before this Court. The evidence which has been led by the respondent- workman has been taken into consideration by the Labour Court while returning the findings. Since there was no evidence on the part of the petitioner-Management before the Labour Court, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-workman was not appointed by it but was appointed through a Contractor, namely, Gurnam Singh, cannot be accepted. Since the Award passed by the Labour Court is based upon the evidence so produced by the workman before the Labour Court and there was no evidence on behalf of the petitioner-Management rebutting the said evidence nor was there any cross-examination of the respondent- workman by it before the Labour Court, the evidence which had been produced by the respondent-workman had to be taken into consideration by the Labour Court, who according to the said evidence has returned the findings and granted benefit to the respondent-workman. The Award passed by the Labour Court being based upon the evidence adduced before it, cannot thus be said to be not in accordance with law. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. May 20, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE