1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5677/2003. : : Seth Anandi Lal Poddar Dumb & Deaf Institution & Anr. Vs. Shri Lallu Lal. : : Date of Order 3.12.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q Mr.Hemant Gupta, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Sumit Khandelwal for Mr.Kunal Rawat for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Seth Anandi Lal Poddar Dumb & Deaf Institution and District Education Officer (First), Jaipur aggrieved by the award dated 2.5.2001, whereby ex-parte proceedings were directed against them before the Labour Court and against the order dated 3.2.2003 whereby their application for setting aside the said proceedings was rejected. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel for the petitioners argued that Labour Court failed to appreciate that service of notice issued to the petitioners was not at all effected and that it was not proper 2 service in the eye of law. There was no post of Manager (Personnel) in the petitioner institution and no reason has been recorded for denial of notices by the petitioner No.2. The fact is that no notice was ever produced before them for being served nor any notice was served upon them. The result of the ex-parte award passed against the petitioners would be that the petitioners would have to incur the liability of not only reinstating the respondent-workman but also continue him even in service. Learned counsel submitted that ex-parte award came to notice of the petitioners only through the notice dated 28.1.2002, which was issued by the Deputy Secretary, Labour Department, Govt.of Rajasthan, Jaipur. When the said notification received in the office of petitioners on 7.1.2002, they immediately applied for obtaining certified copy of the order and obtained copy of the paper book on 16.2.2002 and also applied for setting aside the ex-parte award within one month. Learned counsel submitted that Labour Court failed to appreciate that non-appearance of the petitioners was not intentional but due to non-service of notice. In any case, award ought to have been passed on merits, rather than for default on the part of the petitioners. Shri Sumit Khandelwal, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that the 3 Labour Court has categorically recorded that notice was served upon the petitioners No.1 & 2 respectively on 22.4.1999 and 14.5.199. One person namely; Shri Raja accepted the notice on 22.4.1999. The receipt of the notice has been counter signed by the process server who also reported that District Education Officer declined to affix the seal on such receipt. Labour Court was justified in passing the ex-parte award because the process server could not be disbelieved. The application even otherwise was enormously time barred. Learned counsel submitted that respondent- workman has since been reinstated and effect of setting aside the ex-parte order now at this stage would be to discontinue the respondent-workman from service seven years after passing of the award. Such a result would be unjust and unreasonable to the respondent-workman. In the facts of the case, it is clear that the petitioner school is a Government school and that no employee of the petitioner school is individually effected by out come of the proceedings before the Labour Court and the implementation of the award would only effect the state exchequer in the sense that it is a burden on the finances of the State. The petitioners are justified at least to the extent that there is no Office of Manager (Personnel) in the 4 petitioner's school and if notice was sent by name of said Office, it may not have reached there. In any case, the award was not passed after associating the petitioners and taking into consideration their submissions on merits of the case. But at the same the respondent is also justified in submitting that remand of the matter to Labour Court now at this stage should not result in discontinuing him from service because he was reinstated by the petitioners back in service pursuant to award dated 2.5.2001. In the result, the ex-parte award dated 2.5.2001, and the order dated 3.2.2003 whereby application of the petitioners for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings was rejected, are dismissed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute afresh on merits in accordance with law. It is made clear that the respondent-workman who has been reinstated by the petitioners in their service pursuant to ex-parte award dated 2.5.2001, shall liable to be continued in service subject to final award that may be passed by the Labour Court now. It goes without saying that in case award is passed to the effect that action of the petitioners in terminating service of the respondent-workman vide order dated 21.5.1992 was legal and justified, the respondent-workman would not be 5 entitled to claim any equities and would be liable to be discontinued from service. And if it is held otherwise, he would obviously continue as before. Labour Court is directed to expedite the proceedings of the reference case and decide it finally as expeditiously as possible but not less than one year from the date copy of this order is produced before it. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. (MOHAMMAD RAFI Q)J. A.Arora/ - Item No.44.