Civil Revision No. 2095 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2095 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.8. 2009 M/s Malhi Plastics Industries ......petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Gurcharan Singh, Advocate. for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Vide this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.10.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar. Som Nath-respondent No.3 sought a reference under Section 10 (1) (c ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948, challenging his termination of services. Labour Court, Gurdaspur passed an ex parte award in favour of Som Nath on 3.12.2003 (Annexure P-2), Civil Revision No. 2095 of 2009 (O&M) 2 whereby he was ordered to be re-instated in service with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 24.4.2000 till reinstatement. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application for setting aside the ex parte award dated 3.12.2003. Vide the impugned order dated 21.10.2008 (Annexure P-1), the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that there is no ground for interference by this Court. It has been noticed by the Presiding Officer in the impugned order that notices were issued for service of the petitioner for 14.5.2003. Report of the process server along with his affidavit was available on record with regard to the service of the petitioner. AW-1 Surinder Singh, who had been examined by the petitioner, in his cross-examination admitted that he had received summons from the Labour Court, Jalandhar for appearance in the Court on 14.5.2003. He reached the Labour Court on 14.5.2003 and was informed by the Steno that fresh summons would be issued. The said explanation given by AW-1 was rightly rejected by the Presiding Officer as the same appears to be an afterthought. However, no action was taken by the petitioner thereafter. The petitioner was proceeded ex parte on 14.5.2003. The case was transferred from Labour Court, Jalandhar to Labour Court at Gurdaspur. Thereafter, fresh summons were issued to the petitioner for 31.10.2003. The petitioner was duly served with the summons through its partner Civil Revision No. 2095 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Amardeep. AW-1 Surinder Singh admitted in his cross-examination that summons had been received from the Labour Court, Gurdaspur but the same were lost. Thus despite the fact that the petitioner was again duly served by the Labour Court at Gurdaspur to appear on 31.10.2003, the petitioner chose not to appear in the Court. In these circumstances, learned Presiding Officer has rightly observed that the absence of the petitioner was not bona fide. Rather it appears that the absence of the petitioner was intentional. Hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 17, 2009 anita