IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.749 of 2009 Date of decision: 11.2.2009 Amarnath ......Petitioner Versus Maruti Udyog Ltd. ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-Workman for setting aside the orders dated 29.7.2008 and 16.9.2008 passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Gurgaon vide which evidence of the workman has been closed by order and he has been further ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. As per the averments made in this petition, the services of the petitioner were terminated illegally by the respondent. An industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner on which a reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Gurgaon which is pending. The issues were framed in the case before the Labour Court on 16.2.2005 and evidence of the workman started on 31.10.2005. While passing the order dated 29.7.2008 (Annexure P-1), the Labour Court has noticed that three last opportunities were given to the workman to conclude his evidence but despite that he failed to conclude the same and in fact he had failed to turn up on the date fixed and in this situation the evidence of the workman was closed by order and the case was ordered to be listed for the evidence of the management on 16.9.2008. On that date neither the petitioner was present nor anybody representing him was present and in these circumstances, the Labour Court had no CR No.749 of 2009 -2- alternative but to proceed against the petitioner ex parte. The only contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner in this petition is that the petitioner could not be present due to the reason that inadvertently he noted the wrong date for appearance before the Labour Court and the authorized representative of the petitioner had met with an accident and, therefore, he also could not appear before the Labour Court on 16.9.2008. In support of his contention, the petitioner has not placed on record any document/evidence. Thus, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned orders. Dismissed. February 11, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE