IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2284 of 2011. Decided on: April 28, 2011. Krishan Lal Vrs. Managing Director M/S Modesto Polymers (P) Ltd. And anr. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: None. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Challenge is on Annexure P-3, award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla. The issue referred to reads as follows: “ Whether the termination of services of Shri Krishan Lal s/o Shri Bhalku Ram workman by the Managing Director M/S Modesto Polymers, Pvt. Ltd., Plot no. 13, Sector-5 Parwanoo, District Solan, HP w.e.f. 17.2.2006 without holding any domestic enquiry and without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified, if not, what relief of service benefits, and amount of compensation, the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?” 2. It is seen from the award that the respondent had been set ex-parte. However, it is the stand taken by the Labour Court that the petitioner did not lead any evidence and hence it has been held that the claim of the petitioner is not proved. We are afraid that the stand of the Labour Court as reflected in the Award cannot be appreciated. The petitioner-workman may not have led any independent evidence, however, his claim statement and version of the Company etc. are available. Therefore, the Labour Court should have considered the materials available on record even if the workman had not adduced any fresh or independent evidence and then come to the conclusion as to whether materials already available on record are sufficient or not to answer the reference. Time and again, this Court has been reminding the Officers as to their duty in such 2 situations. The judgment dated 28th February, 2011 in CWP No. 683 of 2011, at paragraph 4, it has been held as follows: “4. Settlement of industrial dispute being the main object behind the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the provisions as extracted above would show that once an industrial dispute which could not be settled in conciliation, the same is referred to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, for adjudication. The purpose of adjudication is determination of the industrial dispute and the same is expressed in the form of an Award. Therefore, once a Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is made to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, the said forum is to determine the dispute or question referred to it by appropriate adjudication. The Government along with the Reference also forwards the relevant materials also to the Court or the Tribunal. Thus, once a Reference is made, the Court or the Tribunal has to decide the same on the basis of the materials available on record. Whether any party to the dispute cooperates or not is immaterial. Hence, there arises no question of dismissal of the Reference for default. The Reference can be disposed of only by passing an Award whereby the question referred to it has been determined by the Labour Court or the Tribunal by passing an Award. The Presiding Officer, on the basis of the materials available on record should consider the matter on merits and enter the findings.” 3. Therefore, we set aside the award and remit the matter to the Labour Court. The Labour Court shall issue fresh notice to the parties and decide the matter in accordance with law. 4. The Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. April 28, 2011. ( Justice V.K.Ahuja ), (karan/vs) Judge.