IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 4335 of 2009 in C.W.P. No. 10216 of 2007. Date of Decision : March 09, 2009. Ramsons Organic Limited. .... Petitioner . Versus. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon, and another. ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate, for the non applicant-petitioner. Mr. A.K. Tyagi, Advocate, for the applicant-respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). C.M. No. 4335 of 2009. Application stands allowed as prayed for. C.W.P. No. 10216 of 2007. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 09.05.2005 (Annexure-P-5) and order dated 19.04.2006 (Annexure-P-7), vide which initially the reference was answered in favour of the respondent- workman and thereafter, an application moved by the petitioner-management for setting aside the ex-parte award, was dismissed on the ground that the Court has become functus officio and therefore, could not entertain an application in connection with the dispute relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. C.W.P. No. 10216 of 2007. Counsel for the petitioner-management contends that the Court has proceeded on the assumption that the service had been effected upon the petitioner-management merely by issuance of the registered notices. There is nothing on record which would substantiate, as a matter of fact, the service was effected upon the petitioner-management and that they had indeed been served the registered notices which had been sent. The records further do not indicate as to whether the acknowledgment due had been received back by the Labour Court in that regard or not. Counsel for the petitioner-management contends that the respondent-workman was employed with the petitioner-management as a Chowkidar and had been working with them from 12.03.1999 to August, 2003, thereafter, he stopped coming to the job. On his absence, letters were sent to him on various dates to come present on the job but the respondent- workman never turned back. It is a case of abandonment and with no option left, the services of the respondent-workman were terminated. He contends that the respondent-workman can still come and join the job. He further contends that in view of this position, the award deserves to be set aside and an opportunity be given to the petitioner-management to contest the claim of the respondent-workman before the Labour Court. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman contends that the petitioner-management had been properly served during the proceedings before the Labour Court and they had not chosen to appear before the Labour Court. Left with no option, the Court has proceeded to pass the ex-parte award and now the petitioner-management after the passing of the award, cannot be allowed to turn around and state that they were not served before the Labour Court. -2- C.W.P. No. 10216 of 2007. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the Labour Court. In the present case, it appears that the assertion put forth by the petitioner-management that they had not been served, is correct as there is no indication that indeed notices were served on the petitioner-management. The Court had proceeded on the presumption of service which also does not indicate in the report which had been presented to the Labour Court. It would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner-management be given an opportunity to contest the claim of the respondent-workman before the Labour Court, however, it would be just and equitable that the respondent- workman be compensated for this. While issuing notice of motion in this matter on 12.07.2007, this Court had directed the petitioner-management to deposit Rs. 25,000/- with the Labour Court, Gurgaon. The said amount stands deposited with the Labour Court as stated by Counsel for the petitioner-management. This amount be released to the respondent- workman and he would also be entitled to the benefit of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act from the date of filing of the affidavit in this Court i.e. 03.03.2009 till today. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 09.05.2005 (Annexure-P-5), is hereby set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 30.03.2009. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 09, 2009. sjks. -3-