Civil Writ Petition No.9513 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Writ Petition No.9513 of 1987 Date of Decision:29.09.2008 Board of School Education, Haryana .....Petitioner Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mrs. Abha Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by the Board of School Education, Haryana, Bhiwani (hereinafter to be referred as `the Board') under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the award dated 18.4.1987 (Annexure P.1/A). The facts giving rise to this petition are that Ram Kumar, respondent was appointed as Peon in the services of the Board purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis vide order dated 6.2.1984. His services were terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of his appointment letter vide order dated 27.12.1985. He raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice dated 31.10.1986 under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, `the Act'). The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak without affording an opportunity of being heard to the Board passed the ex parte order against the Board in an illegal and arbitrary manner on 15.12.1986. The Assistant District Attorney who appeared on behalf of the Civil Writ Petition No.9513 of 1987 -2- Board before the Labour Court has written on the file on 23.12.1986 that the case has been fixed for 10.1.987 for filing written statement, whereas the ex parte order was passed against the Board on 15.12.1986. The Board filed an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings on 15.2.1987 before the Labour Court which was rejected on 1.4.1987. The Board applied for copy of the said order. The application form was returned by the copying agency with the report that there was no such order. The Labour Court held that termination order passed by the Board is illegal and directed the reinstatement of the respondent- Ram Kumar with full back-wages and continuity of service. This award is illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of law and against the principles of natural justice for the reasons as embodied in the petition itself. In his written statement, Ram Kumar- respondent has inter-alia pleaded that his services were terminated without compliance of Section 25 of the Act. The case was adjourned by the Labour Court on 8.12.1986 for filing the written statement by the Board but none had put in appearance on behalf of the Board. The application moved by the Board for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, now the petitioner cannot raise the issue regarding 240 days working of the answering respondent. Lastly, it has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by the Labour Court in the impugned award with due care and circumspection. Mrs. Abha Rathore appearing on behalf of the Board by relying upon the observations made by the Apex Court in re: Ranip Nagar Palika v. Babuji Gabhaji Thakore and others, 2008(1) Service Cases Today 350 Civil Writ Petition No.9513 of 1987 -3- (SC) urged with great eloquence that it was obligatory upon the respondent- workman to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days for the preceding one year and it was for him to adduce evidence apart from examining himself to prove the factum of being in employment of the employer whereas the learned Labour Court by relying upon the mere statement of the respondent- workman Ram Kumar has held that on the date, his termination of service was brought about, he had put in 240 days of actual work, which is untenable. To tide over these submissions, Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate representing the respondent- workman, Ram Kumar urged with great eloquence that the Board did not adduce any evidence operating as rebuttal to the statement of the respondent- workman and that being so, no holes can be picked in the observations pointed out by learned counsel for the Board. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. The doctrine of `audi alteram partem' contemplates that no one should be condemned unheard. Here in this case, learned Labour Court on the premise of solitary statement of the respondent- workman held that he has rendered 240 days' service during the last 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination without giving an opportunity to the Board. The Board has come up with a specific plea that the Assistant District Attorney who had appeared on behalf of the Board before the Labour Court had written on the file on 23.12.1986 that the case has been fixed for 10.1.1987 for filing the written statement whereas the ex parte proceedings order was passed against the Board on 15.12.1986. To add further to it, the Labour Court dismissed the application on 1.4.1987 which was moved for setting aside the ex parte proceedings order. Thus, it is a case in which the doctrine Civil Writ Petition No.9513 of 1987 -4- of equity, justice and good conscious seems to have been given a go by. In these premises, the indulgence in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is required. There was need for factual adjudication on the basis of the material to be adduced by the parties. To put it differently, to secure the ends of justice, an opportunity ought to had been given to the Board to file its written statement and to lead its evidence. That apparently had not been done. Sequelly, I set aside the impugned award dated 18.4.1987 Annexure P.1/A of the Labour Court and remit the matter to the Labour Court, Rohtak to consider the same afresh. Admittedly, Ram Kumar, respondent- workman is serving the Board. He will continue as such till the decision to be rendered by the Labour Court. The Labour Court is directed to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to the Board to file the written statement and to lead its evidence, if any. If the respondent- workman opted to lead any evidence, he will be also given due opportunity. The Labour Court is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to put in their appearance before the Labour Court, Rohtak on 21.10.2008. September 29, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE