IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision : January 23rd, 2008 WP(C) No.74/2008 # Saturn Telecom Ltd. ….… PETITIONER ! Through: Mr.Dilip Singh, Advocate. Versus $ Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. ......... RESPONDENTS ^ Through : Nemo. CORAM :- * HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest? ANIL KUMAR, J. (Oral) * 1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 29th August, 2004 holding that the termination of the services of the respondent No.2/workman was illegal and, therefore, directing reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages and continuity of services and all other legal benefits. 2. After the reference was made to the Labour Court, statement of claim was filed. Written statement was filed by the petitioner taking various objections including that the Conciliation Officer never gave WP(C) No.74/2008 Page 1 of 3 opportunity to the Management in the conciliation proceedings and that no demand notice was served upon the Management. 3. The issues were framed on 7th February, 2002, however, thereafter the Management failed to appear on 20th January, 2003 and was proceeded ex parte. The award was given on 29th August, 2004. From 20th January, 2003 no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner on various dates nor any one appeared to argue the matter before the Labour Court. 4. The Labour Court after considering the documents and evidence on record passed an award dated 29th August, 2004 against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said award, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. However, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, no sufficient cause has been made out for non-appearance of the petitioner/Management or its authorized representative on 20th January, 2003 when ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the petitioner or for subsequent dates. The allegation has rather been made by the petitioner against the authorized representative that he did not discharge himself properly from conducting the proceedings. The petitioner has failed miserably to show as to what was done on behalf of petitioner to enquire from the authorized representative as to what was done on various dates when the matter was listed before the Labour Court. WP(C) No.74/2008 Page 2 of 3 5. The petitioner was proceeded ex parte on 20th January, 2003 and the matter was taken up thereafter on 7th March, 2003; 9th May, 2003 and on various dates thereafter, the details of which are not given by the petitioner. The allegations as made by the petitioner do not constitute sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte award against the petitioner. 6. In the facts and circumstances, no manifest error or error apparent from the record can be inferred from the award dated 29th August, 2004 and the ex-parte proceedings taken against the petitioner. The award is based on un-rebutted testimony of the workman and the documents produced and proved by him. There is no perversity or manifest error or denial of principles of natural justice to the petitioner. 7. The writ petition, in the facts and circumstances, is without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed. January 23, 2008. ANIL KUMAR, J. 'Dev' WP(C) No.74/2008 Page 3 of 3