IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17432 of 2008 Date of decision:08.07.2009 The Director Food and Supplies, Punjab, Chandigarh, now called as the Director Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Punjab at Chandigarh and another ...Petitioners versus Makhan Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the petitioners. Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ----- 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 writ petition challenges the ex parte award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman. The contention, that was taken in written statement on behalf of the management before the Labour Court, was that the alleged termination had been effected on 03.03.1987 and the demand notice was made nearly nine years after the said date. The petition was belated and the petitioner was not entitled to any remedy. There were also other contentions that detailed on the merits of the claim made by the workman. 2. The reason given on behalf of the writ petitioner for being set ex parte was that there had been no Presiding Officer for nearly Civil Writ Petition No.17432 of 2008 - 2 - one and a half years at the Labour Court and since no date had been intimated, there was no appearance. There was no willfulness on the part of the petitioner and since there are valid legal defences available to the management, the ex parte order is required to be set aside. The counsel also refers to the fact that the claim is barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the respondent would state that the ex parte order was passed even as early in 2005 and the award itself was passed long thereafter, there was no justification at all for non-appearance. 3. Without joining issue on the merits of respective contentions made by the parties, I still think in view of the legal objections that the case raises, it would be appropriate that an adjudication is made by the Labour Court after due enquiry and decision rendered on merits. The award passed already by the Labour Court shall be set aside on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.5,000/- as cost to the workman within a period of four weeks. The statement of the workman has already been filed and the Labour Court is requested to take up the decision and dispose it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of this order. If the cost is not paid as directed, the award of the Labour Court already passed shall stand confirmed. Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 10th August, 2009. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 08.07.2009 sanjeev