CR No.7426 of 2009 (O&M) -1- CR No.7309 of 2009 (O&M) CR No.7428 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.7426 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 07.04.2010 **** Hanumant Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. M/s Amtek Saccardi (I) Ltd. . . . . Respondent **** CR No.7309 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 07.04.2010 **** Devender . . . . Petitioner VS. M/s Amtek Saccardi (I) Ltd. . . . . Respondent **** CR No.7428 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 07.04.2010 **** Ramesh Chand . . . . Petitioner VS. M/s Amtek Saccardi (I) Ltd. . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.A.K. Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of three Civil Revisions, ,namely, CR No.7426 of 2009 titled as “Hanumant Singh Versus M/s Amtek Saccardi (I) CR No.7426 of 2009 (O&M) -2- CR No.7309 of 2009 (O&M) CR No.7428 of 2009 (O&M) Ltd.”, CR No.7309 of 2009 titled as “Devender Versus M/s Amtek Saccardi (I) Ltd.” and CR No.7428 of 2009 titled as “Ramesh Chand Versus M/s Amtek Saccardi (I) Ltd.” arising out of the order passed by the Labour Court-II, Gurgaon dated 20.7.2009 which are verbatim same in all the three cases. The basic dispute is about the orders of the Labour Court dated 22.11.2006 and 26.4.2007. Order dated 22.11.2006 reads as under: - “Present: None for workman. Sh. J.S. Saroha, A.R. for the mgt. Today case as fixed for filing for replication and framing of issues. None has appeared on behalf of the workman. Though awaited sufficiently in the day, last at 3.00 P.M. Hence, defence of the workman is struck off. To come up on 14.3.2007 for evidence of the management.” Then another order was passed on 26.4.2007, which reads as under: “Present: None for workman. Shri N.R. Kadian, Authorized Representative for the management. Reference was fixed for filing application by the workman for setting aside the ex parte order dated 22.11.2006. Passed over many times. None appeared on behalf of the workman. So, reference adjourned to 31.8.2007 for ex parte evidence of the management.” CR No.7426 of 2009 (O&M) -3- CR No.7309 of 2009 (O&M) CR No.7428 of 2009 (O&M) The petitioner then filed an application dated 19.3.2008 for setting aside the aforesaid two orders alleging them to be ex parte. The said application was contested by the respondent before the Labour Court on the ground that in the garb of the present application, the petitioner is trying to seek a review which is not permissible under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The learned Labour Court, however, while dismissing the application, allowed the petitioner to join proceedings at the stage where the matters were pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that order dated 22.11.2006 has been passed in total violation of Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) and should have been set aside by the learned Labour Court. Notice of motion was issued in this revision petition but no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent despite service. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record with his assistance. No doubt that an application was filed by the petitioner for setting aside order dated 22.11.2006 and 26.4.2007 on the ground that the said orders have been passed ex parte but the fact remains that he was not proceeded ex parte rather he was not present. As a matter of fact, in the garb of the present application, alleging that he was proceeded against ex parte, review has been sought which even according to the counsel for the petitioner is in permissible as the provision of review is conspicuously absent in the Industrial Dispute Act, CR No.7426 of 2009 (O&M) -4- CR No.7309 of 2009 (O&M) CR No.7428 of 2009 (O&M) 1947. The remedy of review is a creation of statute and can neither be conferred nor can be inferred. Since, learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to review its own order, therefore I do not find any error in its approach in dismissing the application on the ground that the said application has been filed to seek review of an order in the garb of getting the ex parte proceeding set aside. Thus, viewed from any angle, I do not find any merit in the present revision petitions. Therefore, all the three revision petitioners are dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 07.04.2010 JUDGE vivek