IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7845 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.12.2011 Gurinder Singh Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer and another Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present : Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside the order dated 4.11.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar vide which exparte order dated 02.06.2011 was set aside on an application filed by respondent No. 2 and allowed the appearance of Manjit Singh, its representative. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. The petitioner was working as Secretary with respondent No. 2 from 28.10.1998 on salary of Rs. 3536/- per month and his services were terminated on 12.3.1999 which was challenged by filing Civil Writ Petition which was later on withdrawn. The petitioner thereafter filed the case before Registrar Cooperative Societies which was also dismissed and appeal filed before the Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Co-operative Department was allowed in favour of petitioner and on the basis of this decision respondent No. 2 vide resolution dated 14.03.2003 reinstated the petitioner on duty from 14.03.2003. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 20.06.2003 when he demanded the salary from respondent No. 2 against which petitioner claimed reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. A demand notice dated 31.7.2010 was issued and reference was made to Industrial Tribunal. On 02.06.2011, C.R. No. 7845 of 2011 2 when no one had appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 before the Industrial Tribunal the exparte proceedings were initiated which have now been set aside vide order impugned herein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal was in error in setting aside the order dated 2.6.2011 as the person who had put in appearance on behalf of the management was not authorized to represent it and in such circumstances, the order of the Tribunal was not sustainable. 4. After giving thoughtful consideration, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that on 2.6.2011 after initiating exparte proceedings, the case was adjourned to 25.07.2011 for exparte evidence. Thereafter, it was fixed on 19.08.2011. In the application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 2.6.2011, the management had clearly pleaded that Secretary Ajit Singh was authorized to appear to assist Manjit Singh, authorized representative vide resolution dated 12.11.2010 by the managing committee and the absence on 2.6.2011 was neither wilful nor intentional. The Tribunal after considering the matter had set aside ex-parte order dated 2.6.2011. 5. In view of the above, there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) 19.12.2011 JUDGE reena