CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3006 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 13, 2010 M/s Shivam Creation, Faridabad .....Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Faridabad and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner concern has challenged the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court II, Faridabad, allowing the reference of the workman-respondent No.2 directing his reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The workman had served a demand notice dated 16.10.2007, alleging that he was appointed by the petitioner on 5.11.2005 but his services were illegally terminated on 21.9.2007. The Government referred the dispute about the illegal termination of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3006 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: the respondent-workman on 11.4.2008. Notices were accordingly sent to the parties and one Sh.R.K.Sharma, authorised representative appeared on behalf of the workman. No one appeared on behalf of the petitioner-management and it was proceeded exparte on 25.7.2008. Statement of claim was filed by the workman on 9.9.2008. Thereafter, the workman appeared in the witness box and gave exparte evidence, supporting his statement of claim filed before the Labour Court. As per the workman, he was appointed on the post of Die Starter on 5.11.2005. He, however, was not paid minimum wages, for which he raised a demand. The workman alongwith one Rameshwar Singh were therefore, removed from service on 21.9.2007. Both of them made complaint to the Labour Inspector on 26.9.2007. Rameshwar Singh was taken back on duty but the management did not take the respondent-workman back in service. The respondent-workman further deposed that no wage slip, ESI Card, PF Slip and appointment letter were issued to him. He, however, pleaded that his last drawn salary was Rs.3100/- per month. While terminating the services, no retrenchment compensation was paid. He was also not served any charge sheet. The workman accordingly pleaded for his reinstatement with full back wages. On the basis of evidence so led, the Labour Court found that the claim filed by the workman stood established on the basis of documents produced by him, which showed that he had worked for more than 240 days in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. Finding further is that the services of the respondent- workman were illegally terminated in violation of the provisions of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3006 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: Industrial Disputes Act. Since the evidence given by the respondent-workman had gone unrebutted and unchallenged, the Labour Court placed reliance on the same and accepted the reference. On this basis, the Labour Court allowed the reference and held the workman entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back wages. The petitioner, as per their own showing, were proceeded exparte, despite the fact that notice was properly served and authorised representative appeared on their behalf. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the adjourned date. The reason given in this regard is that the authorised representative had noted the wrong date. The petitioner had also filed an application for recall of the order but the Labour Court, by then, had become functus officio. Thereafter, the impugned award was passed on 21.10.2008, which is now challenged through the present writ petition after two years of the date of award. Before issuing notice of motion, the Court had required the petitioner to file an affidavit as to what action the petitioner had taken against the authorised representative. Notice of motion was issued, when some record was produced to show that action had been taken against the authorised representative. The counsel appearing for the petitioner initially gave an impression that a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act had been filed against the authorised representative but later it was found that no such complaint was ever filed. Rather, affidavit was filed that authorised representative being not a lawyer, no action could be taken against him. Rather, a communication was placed on record that respondent-workman is a permanent litigant and is well CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3006 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: known to Mool Chand, authorised representative and has managed this award in collusion with said Mool Chand. Mere communication would not go to prove the assertion. The affidavit given by Mool Chand only shows that he had noted the wrong date by mistake, leading to exparte award. There is, thus, a contradiction between the affidavit and the communication. It is not clear as to what stand the petitioner is wanting to adopt in order to seek setting-aside of this award. The petitioner has not been able to establish the real reason and purpose for which, they were proceeded against exparte and then for challenging the award after a considerable delay, which had remained unexplained. In these peculiar facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the award and, therefore, would dismiss the writ petition. October 13, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE