IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1235 of 2008. Date of Decision : January 27, 2009. Mahesh Saini ..... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurgaon, and another .... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the workman has challenged the award dated 14.08.2007 passed by the Labour Court, vide which it has been held that the workman has not led any oral or documentary evidence on the file to show that the services of the workman were terminated in an illegal manner. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the authorised representative of the workman met with an accident on 12.07.2007 and he had to be admitted in the hospital for his treatment on 12.07.2007 itself. On 13.07.2007 and 14.07.2007, two operations were conducted on him and thereafter, he was discharged on 19.07.2007. The discharge summary of the hospital has been placed on record as Annexure-P-9 with the writ petition. C.W.P. No. 1235 of 2008. He submits that due to this position, the authorised representative could not come present before the Labour Court on the date when the case was taken up for consideration. He submits although a proxy to the authorised representative of the workman did come present to make request for an adjournment and he was not aware of the factual position with regard to the evidence which has been led by the petitioner. He further submits that the affidavit which was filed by way of his evidence was dated 10.04.2007, the same has been attached as Annexure-P-8 in this Court, which clearly supports his case and claim which he had made before the Labour Court but the Labour Court has without going into the evidence which was on record, has given a finding which is totally contrary to the record that there was no evidence on record oral or documentary. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent states that the workman has been retrenched in accordance with law and retrenchment compensation has also been paid to the workman. That being the position, the claim of the workman could not have in any case be allowed. This submission of counsel for the respondent would be on merits of the matter which is also not taken into consideration by the Labour Court while passing its award dated 14.08.2007. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons which have been stated by the petitioner in the writ petition, as noted above, for non appearance of his Authorised Representative leading to the Labour Court giving contrary finding to the record, despite of the affidavit which has been filed by the workman and the statement of the management witness which has been attached as Annexure-P-13 with the writ petition being on record, it would be appropriate that the award passed by the Labour -2- C.W.P. No. 1235 of 2008. Court impugned herein is set aside and the matter is remanded for decision on merit and the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 14.08.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Gurgaon, is hereby set aside and the parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 19.02.2009 for further consideration. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 27, 2009. sjks. -3-