CWP No.17645 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.17645 of 2006 Date of decision October 5, 2009 M/s Shila International, D-19, Focal Point, Bye Pass Jalandhar ....... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. N. K. Suneja, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chibbar Sharma, DAG., Punjab for respondent Nos.2,3 and 5. Ms. Sumanjeet Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers 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 which was passed on 20.1.2005. The Labour Court before passing the award had purported the service of notice to the Management and on 18.10.2004 the notice had been duly served through registered post and the acknowledgment had also been received back. On such a observation the Labour Court proceeded the respondent ex-parte and posted for ex- parte evidence. The case was subsequently taken up after the evidence of the workmen and proceeded to pass the ex-parte award on 20.1.2005. The CWP No.17645 of 2006 2 workman had attempted to execute the award by applying before the Labour Commissioner and it appears from the record that Labour Inspector had attempted to go to the factory personally where a person by name Surinder Pal Singh had informed that owner of the factory had gone on tour and as soon as he returns they would contact the Labour Inspector. The Labour Inspector gave a report stating that they were deliberately not complying with the terms of the award that recommended notice to be issued. It was only after obtaining the report of the Labour Commissioner arrest notice had been issued. The Management had come in writ petition challenging the ex-parte award. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Labour Court had not properly applied its mind and it was in error in setting the Management ex-parte even without ascertaining whether there had been a valid service of notice. Learned counsel further refers me to the averment of the writ petition that the Management had not been served with any notice from the Labour Court and absence from the Labour Court was not intentional. While referring to the contentions of the letter of the Labour Inspector, learned counsel would submit that Surinder Pal Singh was not in any way authorized to represent the Management and therefore, his so called presence before the Labour Commissioner was also not taken as sufficient representation of the Management. 3. Here is a case where there is a definite order passed by the Labour Court setting the Management ex-parte on an express statement that the registered notice had been served and the acknowledgment had been returned duly signed by the party. In my view, it would not be suffice for a person who wants to contend that there was no due service but merely contend that he had not been served when the manner of service and the fact that the acknowledgment had been returned duly served was specifically stated. It shall be necessary for a CWP No.17645 of 2006 3 person, who wants to contend that there was no service that the acknowledgment that was in Court had not been really signed by the party. A specific denial however had been made in order that the Court could examine that there had been valid service or not. It is not as if that the workmen rush to execute immediately after securing the award on 20.1.2005. It is also not possible to totally discount the effect of report from the Labour Inspector that he had actually gone to the factory and was apprised the person missing. The conduct of the petitioner, in my view did more in evasion than an attempt to really go to the Court with truth. The decision of the Labour Court to set a person ex-parte is not a judicial order in the sense that any serious application of mind is necessary more than merely had been satisfied that there had been service to the notice to the respondent. In this case, it on record an acknowledgment containing signature of the party. Without a specific denial that the signature found on the document is not of that person of the factory, it may be presumable and the petitioner to contend that there had been valid service, the presumption of service which is attached to service of registered letters could be disputed only if there had been a specific denial that the signatures found in the document is not of that person of the factory. There being no such express denial, I find no scope in considering that there had been error in the Labour Court proceedings to set the respondent ex-parte and issue the award that was made. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner refers me to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Adarsh Foundry and Engineering Works in CWP No.11773 of 1993 that when a petitioner had never been served by the Labour Court the proceedings leading to the rendering of the award could not be void. The Hon'ble Bench held that the award had been passed without effecting service on the petitioner and as such the same was invalid. The reference CWP No.17645 of 2006 4 to the judgment in my view has no value for the decision referred to the fact that the award did not say as to when the Court actually refers to a particular mode of service. The petitioner in this case expected to state that the particular service which was attributed to him was false or that it assumes with no such express or bold allegation that he had never been served. In my view, it will be to get over the consequences of the specific orders made by the Labour Court. I find no strength to derive a different finding from that of the Labour Court for the particular facts in this case. 5. The writ petition under the circumstances is without merit and is dismissed as such. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE Octber 5, 2009 archana