CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3887 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3887 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 26 , 2010 Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited .....Petitioner VERSUS Sh. Rajesh Kumar Shukla and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Hemlata Issar, Advocate with Mr. K.K. Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner-Management has come to challenge the ex parte order passed by the Labour Court, Chandigarh, dated 21.4.2009 and order dated 28.1.2010, whereby the application for setting aside the ex parte order was also dismissed. In response to dispute being referred to the Labour Court for adjudication, the petitioner-Management appeared before the Labour Court. Respondent No.1-workman was working as CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3887 of 2010 -2- Relationship Manager at salary of Rs.22,000/-. It is also alleged that he was terminated while being on probation. The counsel for the petitioner-Management had inadvertently noted wrong date as 14.05.2009. When he appeared on the said date, the counsel found that the case was listed on 21.4.2009 and an ex parte order was passed. The counsel immediately moved an application for setting aside ex parte order along with an affidavit. The said application was also rejected on 28.1.2010. The petitioner concerned has now impugned both the orders in the present writ petition. Reply on behalf of the respondent-workman has been filed. Counsel for the said respondent refers to the averment made in the reply that the petitioner-Management has no cause to seek setting aside the ex parte order. He would, accordingly, oppose the prayer made in the writ petition. Primarily, it is seen that the petitioner concerned was proceeded ex parte because of fault on the part of the counsel representing the petitioner. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner-Management. It is required to be noticed equally that the respondent-workman was also not at fault and cannot be penalized because of the fault on the part of the counsel representing the petitioner-Management. In order to balance the equities in the petition, the impugned orders are set aside. However, the respondent-workman would require to be compensated adequately. He has been made CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3887 of 2010 -3- to appear before this Court without any fault on his part. He would also have to undergo another round of litigation before the Labour Court. Accordingly, the respondent-workman is held entitled to the costs, which is assessed as Rs.10,000/-. This cost be deposited before the Labour Court and the respondent-workman would be entitled to withdraw the same. The Labour Court would proceed to decide the reference afresh only if the cost is deposited. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 21.9.2010. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. August 26 , 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE