C.R No.7777 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No.7777 of 2010 Date of Decision: 12.10.2011 M/s Torrent Pharmaceutical Ltd ....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. M.P.S Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.P.S Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent No.2. JASWANT SINGH, J By filing the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner-Management has laid challenge to the impugned order dated 8.11.2010 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala whereby their application for setting aside ex parte proceedings dated 26.4.2010 has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the workman-respondent No.2 was working as Medical Representative with the petitioner- Management but his services were allegedly terminated. Consequently, he raised an Industrial dispute and the same was referred to the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ambala. Notice of said reference issued upon the petitioner-Management but due to their non- appearance, the Management-petitioner was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 26.4.2010 by the learned Labour Court. Thereafter an application was filed for setting aside the ex parte proceedings but the C.R No.7777 of 2010 #2# same has been dismissed, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner-Management never received any summons nor was having any knowledge about the pendency of the reference before the learned Labour Court on the date of passing of order dated 26.4.2010 (P.7) and in case the impugned order is not set aside, the petitioner-Management shall suffer an irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated in any way. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2- workman submits that the Management-petitioner was duly served but they intentionally did not appear just to prolong the matter, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this Court finds merit in the present petition and the same deserves to be allowed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-Management is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and its registered office is situated at Ahmedabad. There is nothing on record to prove that any summon or notice was ever served upon the petitioner-Management at its registered office. Learned Labour Court has dismissed the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings merely on conjectures by relying on paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application filed by the Management and further observing that it was clearly revealed that the Management was well within the knowledge C.R No.7777 of 2010 #3# about the pendency of the present reference as well as the ex parte proceedings from the very beginning. A perusal of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application as reproduced in the impugned order itself reveals that being a vigilant litigant, the Management had instructed its counsel Sh. M.P.S Mann, Advocate to inquire from the Labour Court on 19.8.2010 on account of failure of conciliation proceedings between the parties and then only they came to know about the passing of the ex parte order dated 26.4.2010. Moreover, the law is well settled that no one should be condemned unheard, which is the minimum requirement of principle of natural justice before passing any order of civil consequences. Thus, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to allow the present petition and set aside the impugned order dated 8.11.2010 as well as ex parte proceedings dated 26.4.2010 (P.7) and permit the petitioner- Management to join the proceedings and pursue their case as per law. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 8.11.2010 is set aside subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as costs by way of demand draft to respondent No.2-workman. Payment of costs is a condition precedent. However, it is made clear that the petitioner- Management shall not delay the matter unnecessarily. October 12, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE