C.W.P. No.6251 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.6251 of 1989 Date of Decision: 02.12.2009 2. C.W.P. Nos.6252 to 6256 of 1989 S.K. Engineering Works , G.T. Road, Batala through its partner Shri Shiv Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Labour Commissioner, Punjab and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. R.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. All the writ petitions arise out of ex parte awards passed against the same management at the instance of several workmen, who had claimed in the respective statements that they were illegally terminated from service, although they had completed 240 days of continuous service. Their respective contentions were that there had been a statutory violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and that they were entitled to reinstatement with back wages. 2. The Labour Court had merely the statements of the workmen before it for acceptance of their cases that they had completed 240 days of service and there having been no contra- C.W.P. No.6251 of 1989 -2- evidence to the contentions of the workmen by the fact that the management had been set ex parte, the Labour Court accepted the evidence of the workmen and passed awards in favour of the workmen directing reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. While setting the management ex parte and proceeding to pass the ex parte awards, the Labour Court had observed that notices had been sent to the respondent and it had proof of service of the registered acknowledgment receipts and found that was justification enough for passing the ex parte awards. 3. After the writ petitions were filed, the management had the benefit of stay and it appears that the management had filed the affidavits stating that no notice had been received and the acknowledgment did not contain the company seal. This affidavit is purported to have been made on inspection of records before the Labour Court. Learned counsel appearing for the management would contend that none of the workmen was in employment during the relevant period when the services were alleged to have been commenced and would seek to rely on some settlement purported to have been effected under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act that they were workmen of some other establishment in the year 1984 and they were receiving some amounts as compensation and undertook not to have any further recourse against the said management. The attempt of the learned counsel was, therefore, to show that the contention of the workmen that they had been engaged from the year 1982 was not true. The complaint in the statement before the Labour Court was that the illegal termination had been C.W.P. No.6251 of 1989 -3- effected in the year 1988 and the relevant period for consideration of continuous service for 240 days should have been for a period of 12 months prior to the date of termination. Whether the workmen were engaged from the year 1982 was not really material for consideration, although it would have some bearing about the general conduct of the workmen and the truth of all the contentions made in the claim statements. As regards the reference in the awards that the management had been served, the learned counsel would refer to the affidavit filed by an officer of the management that the records of the Labour Court had been verified and it did not bear the signature of any of the partners of the firm or any officer of the firm and that further it did not also bear the seal of the firm. The several contentions urged by the learned counsel as regards the alleged employment of the workmen in some other factory or the want of service are pure questions of fact and it shall not be possible for me to vouch for the correctness of the contentions. After having secured the order of admission in the year 1989, the attempt of the management to question the findings of fact relating to the non-employment of the workmen or the non-service of the Court notices seem unfair and more so when none of the workmen is represented through counsel or present in person. 4. Learned counsel, Sh. Ahluwalia appearing for the petitioner also would urge that Court ought not to have merely acted on the solitary statements of the workmen without looking for any corroborative proof. It is rather strange to advance such arguments in an ex parte proceeding, for it is always a matter of appreciation of C.W.P. No.6251 of 1989 -4- particular evidence by a trial Court whether the evidence evokes credibility or not. It cannot be stated as a rule of thumb that ex parte evidence should always be accepted but it cannot also be urged that mere oral assertions will not be sufficient enough even when the adversary does not join issues in Court and contest the oral assertions. The learned counsel refers to a decision of Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in State of Punjab Vs. Kashmir Singh and another (2003) 4 SCT 357 that a Labour Court ordering reinstatement relying upon statement of workmen in ex parte evidence, with no documentary evidence produced to prove the case would not be sufficient and the State would deserve to be given a chance to defend itself as supporting his contention that an opportunity should be given. I am bound by the decision of the Division Bench. The management shall, therefore, have an opportunity to defend itself before the Labour Court by filing its written statement and for such a course, the awards passed by the Labour Court are set aside. This shall be subject to a condition that the management pays to the workman in each one of those cases Rs.15,000/- as costs, which shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this order. If the payment by demand draft or by cash or by personal delivery or by post to any of the workman is not possible, the petitioner-management shall deposit the same before the Labour Court within the time as stipulated above. If there is no compliance of the order within the time as stipulated, the award passed already shall stand confirmed. 5. The writ petitions are allowed and disposed of in the manner referred as above. In view of the fact that respondents are not present C.W.P. No.6251 of 1989 -5- before the Court, the Labour Court shall issue notice of appearance to the respondents for 11.01.2010 as soon as the records are received by the Labour Court. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 02, 2009 Pankaj*