C.W.P.No.1596 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.1596 of 2001 Date of Decision:- 27.03.2009 Bir Pal ....Petitioner(s) vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Cour-I, Faridabad and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.R.S.Sihota, Sr. Advocate with Mr.B.R.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Manoj Sood, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the order dated 14.11.2000 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Labour Court wherein the application moved by the workman for setting aside the ex parte order dated 6.8.1998 and the award dated 14.5.1999 has been dismissed, as well as the ex parte award dated 14.5.1999 (Annexure P-4). Counsel for the petitioner contends that the absence on the part of the workman was not intentional before the Labour Court as he was not intimated of the date by the authorized Representative appearing on his behalf before the Labour Court. He contends that after 27.2.1998, none had put in appearance on behalf of the workman and since the workman was not intimated about the date of the case fixed before the Labour Court by the C.W.P.No.1596 of 2001 -2- authorized representative, the workman was unable to come present before the Labour Court resulting into ex parte proceedings being passed against him vide order dated 6.8.1998 and ultimately, the award dated 14.5.1999. He contends that on 5.8.1999, on coming to know about the publication of the ex parte award dated 14.5.1999, the workman moved an application on 18.8.1999 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 6.8.1998 and the award dated 14.5.1999. He contends that there was no delay on the part of the workman which shows that it was not that the workman was intentionally not appearing before the Labour Court rather no benefit would have accrued to the workman by delaying the proceedings before the Labour Court and, therefore, the impugned order dated 14.11.2000 passed by the Labour Court deserves to be set aside and consequently, the ex parte award dated 14.5.1999 as well. He relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Devi and another vs. Vaneeta Jain and others 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 153 and G.P.Srivastava vs. R.K.Raizada and others, 2000 (2) J.T. 569. He, on the basis of these judgments, submits that the workman deserves to be given a chance to make a claim for adjudication before the Labour Court so that his rights could be settled. I have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the impugned award gives an insight into and about the conduct of the workman. The reason assigned by the workman for setting aside of the ex parte award dated 14.5.1999 was that he had earlier appointed Ms.Savita Bhandari as his authorized representative and to that effect, he had given his letter of authority to her. He submits that she did not inform him about the next date of hearing i.e. 6.8.1998 in spite of his going to her house and he was not having any knowledge about the award that had been passed C.W.P.No.1596 of 2001 -3- against him ex parte. He contends that he came to know about the award when he received a copy thereof from the Labour Department. However, in his cross-examination he admitted that he had come to pursue his case in the year 1996-97 and thereafter did not turn up. It is also an admitted position that Ms. Savita Bhandari has been practising for the last five years. Keeping these contentions in mind, the Labour Court on perusal of the records of the case, has in para 8 of the order, observed as under:- “8. A perusal of Jimni orders, shows that on receipt of the reference. Sh.Lal Chand had been appearing for the workman as A.R. since 29.11.1996 to 27.1.1998. Then nobody appeared on his behalf w.e.f. 27.2.1998 when issued were framed and there is nothing on record whether Mrs.Swita Bhandari had ever been representative of the workman since she has never been marked present, nor there is any her letter of authority, on record it is that of Sh.Lal Chand, who has also filed claim statement on behalf of the workman applicant on 5.6.1997. So in these circumstances, no sufficient cause is made out to set-aside ex parte award dated 14.5.1999 in view submission made on behalf of the workman and observations made in SUSHILA NARAHARI & ORS. VS. NANDAKURMA & ANR. arising Order 9 Rule 13 CPC (V of 1908), is of no help to the workman having arising out of quite different facts.” C.W.P.No.1596 of 2001 -4- In the light of the factual position, as has come up and is apparent, the workman was totally dishonest with the Court. With an intention to mislead the Court, he had cooked up a story which has no legs to stand on. A person craving for equity should come with clean hands. Truth is the defence which the workman has flouted with impunity. The Court can only come to the rescue of a person who surrenders himself to truth and comes out accepting his fault and if not, at least the reasons assigned therein should have a semblance of truth therein. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner and the propositions led therein cannot be disputed with. The same are also with an intention to forward the interest of justice but the primary question in the present case is, “Will the Court come to the rescue of a person who is himself not true to the Court?” The answer to this question is No. The temple of Justice which has its foundation on truth cannot be allowed to be polluted with the vice of untruth. In the given facts and circumstance of the case, no interference by this Court is called for. The writ petition stands dismissed. March 27, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No