CWP No. 13482 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13482 of 2007 Date of Decision: 17.9.2008 Mohan Lal ....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-2, Gurgaon and another .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Gunjan Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has challenged the Award dated 24.4.2007 (Annexure P.3) passed by the learned Labour Court, in the absence of the petitioner and his representative. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working with respondent No.2 since February, 2001 as supervisor. His services were terminated on 13.2.2003 without assigning any reason. The petitioner raised dispute in respect of termination of his services, which was referred to the Labour Court, Gurgaon, by the appropriate Government. The learned Labour Court answered the reference in the absence of the petitioner and his representative. The said order is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the representative of the petitioner before the Labour Court informed him that the case stands CWP No. 13482 of 2007 (2) adjourned to 27.7.2007, when the same was taken up on 24.4.2007. In fact, the reference was answered against the petitioner on 24.4.2007 itself. It was only on account of the mistake of the counsel that the petitioner was not informed about he proceedings of the case, which led to the passing of the impugned Award by the learned Labour Court. The stand of the petitioner that it was on account of the mistake of the counsel in communicating about the date of hearing, which led to the passing of the impugned order, cannot be said to be totally unbelievable or unjust. Such type of mistakes do often happen. Thus, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Labour Court is not sustainable. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Labour Court with the direction to decide the reference on merits, in accordance with law. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Labour Court on 10.11.2008 for further proceedings, in accordance with law. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 17.9.2008 ds