Indian Hydraulic Industries P v. Shayam Lal

VEENA BIRBAL, J SEPTEMBER 13th, 2010 kks

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 13th September, 2010 + W.P.(C) 22474/2005 INDIAN HYDRAULIC INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. P.K. Malik with Mr. M.P. Joshi, Advs. versus SHYAM LAL & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: None CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Veena Birbal, J. 1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for quashing of impugned ex parte award dated 14.08.2001 in I.D. No. 632/1999 as well as order dated 11.05.2005 by which learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court has dismissed the application of petitioner/management for setting aside of ex parte award. 2. The facts leading to the filing of present petition are as under:- Respondent/workman had raised an industrial dispute about his alleged illegal termination which was referred by the Secretary (Labour) Government of NCT of Delhi to Labour Court vide reference no. F.24(2792)/99 Lab. /37193-97 dated 09.09.1999 to Smt. Deepa Sharma, Presiding Officer, Labour Court-V, Delhi for adjudication. On 21.09.1999, the said dispute was registered vide I.D. No. 632/1999 and notice was issued to the parties. Petitioner has alleged that he was not served with any notice/summons in the said case for appearance on 21.03.2000 or for any other date. It is stated that on 21.03.2000, the Ld. Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 26.04.2000 for further proceedings. On the said date, due to non- appearance, petitioner/management was proceeded ex parte. The ex parte evidence of the respondent/workman was recorded and on 14.08.2001, the impugned ex parte award was passed against the petitioner/management. It is alleged that petitioner had no knowledge of the entire proceedings. The said award was published on 15.06.2002. Thereafter, on 26.06.2002, respondent/workman made a claim vide letter dated 26.06.2002 of ` 1,33,640.04 paise and petitioner/management responded vide letter dated 27.07.2002 that the same was not maintainable. It is stated that prior to above reference, vide reference no. F.24(5866)/98-Lab./540-44 dated 06.01.1999, the Secretary (Labour) Government of NCT of Delhi had referred the dispute about alleged illegal termination of respondent for adjudication to the court of Sh. Mahavir Singhal, Presiding Officer, Labour Court-VI, Delhi wherein petitioner did not appear and no dispute award was passed in the matter on 26.11.1999. It is alleged that the petitioner was under the impression that the matter has already been disposed of. Thereafter, on enquiry it was revealed that impugned ex parte award is made in another reference. It is alleged that petitioner has concealed the fact of earlier reference and passing of "no dispute" award therein from the Labour Court which passed the impugned ex parte award in the present case. Aggrieved with the impugned ex parte award dated 14.08.2001, petitioner had earlier filed the petition for setting aside of ex parte award by filing W.P.(C) No. 2389/2004 wherein the following order was passed:- "Learned counsel for the Petitioner says that his client was not served in I.D. No. 632/99 and was, therefore, proceeded against ex parte. He further says that he could not move an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC since a recovery certificate had already been received by his client. Learned counsel for the Petitioner says that he will move an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC within one month before the learned Labour Court to have the ex parte order and the ex parte Award passed in ID No. 632/00 set aside. Learned counsel wants to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to move an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC. Leave and liberty granted. Dismissed as withdrawn. CM 2228/2004, CM 2229/2004 & CM 6395/2004 also stan