CWP No. 17604 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17604 of 2008 Date of decision July 13 2009 NHPC Ltd. ....... Petitioner Versus Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Circle-I, Faridabad and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for respondent No. 2. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition challenges an ex-parte award passed by the Labour Court on two grounds that there had been admittedly no service of notice to the Management and that further there was no evidence at all to show that the workman was employed between 1999- 2006. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner makes pointed reference to the report on summons made by the Process Server showing that the summons was not served. 2. The report on summons makes it seem that the Management was not deliberately getting served on one excuse or the other. It is definitely a case where summons had not been served and if at all there was a justification for the Labour Court to proceed ex-parte against the respondent, it should have been in some way satisfied that the service was deliberately evaded. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent CWP No. 17604 of 2008 2 states that there was no bona fides in the petition which has been filed more than six months after the award was passed. 3. As regards the merits of contentions raised by the workman before the Labour Court, it is pointed out on behalf of the Management that the document relied on by the Labour Court referred to opening of a Bank account and the pass book for the year 1999 and the inference made by the Labour Court that the workman had been in service till 2006 was without basis. To this, learned counsel for the respondent would respond by stating that there was an admission even in the writ petition that the petitioner was working till the year 2001. It is definitely a case where even if there is a justification for proceeding ex-parte there was no basis for the Labour Court to have come to the conclusion that it did that the workman was employed upto the year 2006. Learned counsel for the workman states that better evidence could have been produced if only there was a challenge but in this case the Management had remained ex-parte and hence the oral assertion by the workman was sufficient. 4. This is a matter where parties must have adequate opportunity to join issues on the date of initial engagement and the date till which the workman was actually employed. Even while finding justification for setting aside the order of the Labour Court the Management has to take the responsibility for allowing the matters to drift this long for no fault of the workman. The award of the Labour Court shall be set aside on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.15,000/- as costs to the respondent on or before 31.8.2009 failing which the order already passed by the Labour Court shall stand confirmed. The matter shall be remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration by allowing the Management to file written statement to the claim made by the workman within a period which may be specified by the Labour Court and to dispose of the reference as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the CWP No. 17604 of 2008 3 date when the records have been received. 5. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 4.9.2009. 6. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 13, 2009 archana