IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.698 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.10.2010 P.M.Vohra. ....... Petitioner through Shri Pankaj Jain, Advocate. Versus P.O.,Labour Court-I, Gurgaon and others. ....... Respondent nos. 2 & 3 through Shri P.K.Mutneja, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 11.12.2009 by which the ex parte order against respondent no.2 for non-appearance passed on 14.5.2002, was set aside. Counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order has resulted in serious prejudice to the case of the petitioner as despite the fact that the respondent-management had failed to show sufficient cause before the Labour Court, the ex parte order was set aside subject toi payment of Rs.1000/- as costs. It is his contention that delay in filing the application for setting aside ex parte proceedings which was not satisfactorily C.R.No.698 of 2010 (O&M) -2- .... explained, ought not to have been condoned by the Labour Court and that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 contended that a perusal of the application for setting aside ex parte proceedings would reveal that M/S Silotech Engineering Pvt.Limited is not operational since 1997 and the reference of the dispute against the said company was made in the year 2002. He further contended that the sister concern, namely, M/S Enexco Teknologies India Limited was being represented in the reference and it was believed that the management of M/S Silotech Engineering Pvt. Limited was also being represented. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no reason to disturb the impugned order which has been passed to ensure substantial justice to the parties. The Court is, however, of the view that a prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the impugned order as the costs of Rs.1000/- which have been awarded to him are not commensurate with the default committed by the respondent-management. A litigant who is expected to be compensated with costs in lieu of his right which has accrued on account of default of opposite party, must be compensated with an amount which is just and adequate and not merely cosmetic. Consequently, the respondent-management is permitted to join the proceedings before the Labour Court subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs which shall be paid to the petitioner. Noticing the fact that the matter pertains to the year 2002, it is C.R.No.698 of 2010 (O&M) -3- .... also deemed appropriate to direct the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court to dispose of of the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight months from today and no untoward adjournment shall be granted to either of the parties. With the aforesaid observations, the revision petition is disposed of. October 27,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge