D R YADAV; B P CHOUBEY; R K ROY Vs. CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA; INDUSTRIAL COURT; PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT BILASPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three appeals arise from a common order dated 28.4.2015 passed in three separate writ petitions heard analogous. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has thus waived formal service in Writ Appeal No.349 of 2015 and Writ Appeal No.359 of 2015. Writ Appeal No.345 of 2015 is barred by seven days delay. Considering the duration of delay, it is condoned. I.A. No.1 of 2015 is allowed.

(2.) The Learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Industrial Court dated 27.3.2004 which had affirmed the order of the Labour Court dated 28.2.2002 holding the termination of the Appellants to be bad. Liberty has been granted to the Respondent for filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recall of order dated 28.2.2002 as it was passed ex-parte and the Respondent did not have the opportunity to lead any evidence, simultaneously acknowledging that the Appellants were suffering the termination from 1997.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that in the facts of the case, the Learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petitions granting liberty to the Respondents for filing an application under Order IX Rule 13. No sufficient cause had been shown by the Respondents. The plea that no notice had been served upon them by the Labour Court was rejected by the Industrial Court on merits after perusing the records of the Labour Court. If a party to a case does not appear deliberately after valid service of notice setting aside an ex-parte order essentially is giving an advantage to the wrong doer. The Learned Single Judge has grossly erred in not considering and dealing with the findings regarding valid service of notice upon the Respondents returned by the Industrial Court.