WP(C) No.2736/2006 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) NO. 2736/2006 Date of decision: 22.01.2009 % M/S PLAZA PLASTICS …. Petitioner Through Mr. Akash Singh, Advocate Versus GOVT. OF NCT & ANR. …. Respondent Through Mr. D. N. Pandey, Advocate HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?NO 2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES V. K. SHALI, J. (Oral) * 1. The petitioner by virtue of the present writ petition has challenged the ex-parte award dated 3rd January, 2002 passed in ID No. 115/1996 titled The Management of M/s Plaza Plastic Vs. its workman c/o Nav Jagriti Krantikari Mazdoor Union passed by the Labour Court-IX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi which held the termination dated 10th August, 1994 of the respondent/workman to be illegal and unjustified as well as violating Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, the workman was directed to be reinstated with payment of 50 % of last drawn wages w.e.f. 10th August, 1994. 2. The award has been challenged primarily on the ground that the petitioner was never served and consequently they went unrepresented WP(C) No.2736/2006 Page 2 of 4 before the learned Labour Court. The respondent/workman has filed the counter affidavit and contested the claim of the petitioner/management about the service of the petitioner. It was averred in the counter affidavit that the petitioner/management was indulging in dilatory tactics and accordingly refused the registered cover containing the notice at address M/s Plaza Plastic, A-313/37 Inderlok Delhi-110035 which was returned back by the postal authorities with the remarks that no such firm exists. 3. In this regard, it was further averred that it has come in the order sheet dated 17th February, 2002 that the petitioner/management has refused the service of summons. The petitioner/management has not filed any rejoinder to this. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Rule 18 of the Industrial Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1949 laid down as under: “18. Service of summons or notice- Subject to the provisions contained in rule 20, any notice, summons, process or order issued by a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal, National Tribunal or an Arbitrator empowered to issue such notice, summons, process or order, may be served either personally or by registered post [and in the event of refusal by the party concerned to accept the said notice, summons, process or order, the same shall be sent again under certificate of posting.]” 5. A perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that as far as possible, the notice/summons must be served on the petitioner/management either personally or by registered post and it is only in the event that if there is a refusal that it ought to be sent by UPC where the Court may be raise a presumption of fact of service in the event the letter is not received WP(C) No.2736/2006 Page 3 of 4 back. In other words, dispatch of notice by registered post as well as by UPC simultaneously would not be in consonance with the rule. Further especially where there is no evidence of service of summons or notice personally. 6. Certified photocopies of the order sheet of the learned Labour Court-IX have been filed. The order sheet shows that on 12th October, 1999 summons on the petitioner/management were received back with the report that there is no such firm is at the given address. The address of the firm which was reflected on the registered cover is M/s Plaza Plastic, A-313/37 Inderlok Delhi-110035. This is one of the addresses shown in the Sales Tax record as well as in the memo of parties of the petition, yet the report of the postal authorities is that there is no such firm at the given address. Therefore, this report of the postal authorities seems to be totally incorrect that the petitioner/management firm is not having its works at the said address. This seems to be a procured report. Thereafter, notices/summons were ordered to be sent afresh on 12th October, 1999 and 17th February, 2000 wherein the report is that the management has refused the summons and consequently the summons were affixed and that was deemed to be a valid service and accordingly the petitioner/management were proceeded ex-parte. The order sheet does not show the statement of process server in whose presence the summons are purported to have been refused or who had affixed the summons on account of the refusal. No statement on account of this WP(C) No.2736/2006 Page 4 of 4 has been recorded, therefore, the service of the summons on the petitioner/management becomes doubtful. 7. Apart from this the Rule 18 of the Industrial Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1949 specifically lays down that, in case, the summons are refused or avoided a copy thereof is to be sent under postal certificate which in the instant case has not been done. Since, the petitioner learnt about the award only after publication they preferred this writ petition for setting aside the ex-parte award. 8. Having regards to the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the service of the summons on the petitioner/management is doubtful. The petitioner ought to be given a fair chance to defend and present their case before the learned Labour Court as they were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the matter. Accordingly, the ex- parte award dated 3rd January, 2002 is set aside subject to the petitioner/management paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent/workman before the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court after giving the opportunity to the petitioner/management shall proceed to decide the reference on merit. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Labour Court on 16th February, 2008. JANUARY 22, 2009 V.K. SHALI, J. KP/RN