CWP No.16050 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.16050 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: May 22, 2008 M/S NEERAJ ENGG. INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONERS VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT II, ...RESPONDENTS FARIDABAD AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. PRESENT: MR. SHIV KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. A.P. BHANDARI, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The Government of Haryana had made a reference on 18.6.2002, to the following effect:- “Whether the termination of the service of Shri Molai is justified to not? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?” The reference was declined by the Labour Court on 28.2.2003 (Annexure P-6). The award was ex-parte. An application (Annexure P-7) was filed for setting aside the ex-parte award. Vide Annexure P-8, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court on 4.6.2003 had set aside the ex-parte award and listed the case for evidence of the workman. This time, vide Annexure P-10, the ex-parte award was passed against the Management and vide Annexure P-11, the workman was held entitled to reinstatement with CWP No.16050 of 2006 -2- continuity of service and full back wages. Thereafter, the State of Haryana through Labour Inspector lodged a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad under Section 29/31 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has been averred in the writ petition that petitioner No.1-Management had closed on 12.9.2001 and they had also surrendered the Excise Registration Certificate. Notice regarding closure was also pasted on the main entrance gate of the establishment. It has been further averred that the firm had closed down because of slump in the market and loss in the business. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the sole proprietorship concern belonged to his father and the petitioner at that time was minor. This Court while issuing notice of motion had recorded the following contention of the counsel for the petitioners on 16.11.2006:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner had not been duly served upon the application presented before the Labour Court for recalling the order vide which the ex-parte award had been made by dismissing the reference against the workman. He contends that as per Rule 18 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, the notice was required to be served personally and through registered covered, but the process was not adhered to by the Labour Court. In fact the service was shown to be effected on one foreman who is not the employee of the petitioner. This service would not be acceptable and would be in accordance with law.” CWP No.16050 of 2006 -3- On the last date of hearing, we are of the prima facie opinion that the ex-parte award is liable to be set aside. Then the counsel for the parties stated that there are chances of compromise between the parties. We had recorded in our order dated 9.4.2008 as follows:- “Learned counsel for the parties state that there are chances of compromise between the parties. Adjourned to 22.5.2008.” Today Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate appearing for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners are ready to pay the amount whatever is due to the workman and draft to this effect was also prepared in favour of the workman. Sh. A.P. Bhandari, states that the workman has been in the corridors of the Courts since 2001 and he should be paid some compensation. After having heard the parties and taking over-all view we are of the opinion that the workman is entitled to the amount what is due to them and for which the draft had been prepared alongwith the compensation of Rs.5000/- in order to promote industrial peace which is lingering on for the last so many years. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioners shall pay the amount for which the draft was prepared alongwith compensation of Rs.5000/- on or before 1.8.2008. Counsel for the petitioner has also stated that in case the amount is not paid on or before 1.8.2008, then the workman shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% from the date when the amount CWP No.16050 of 2006 -4- had become due to him. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE May 22, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) Gulati JUDGE