SERVOKON SYSTEM LIMITED Vs. BRAHM PRAKASH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition challenge has been made to ex parte award dated 20.02.2009 whereby the respondent no. 1/workman i.e. Sh. Brahm Prakash has been given reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. An industrial dispute between the parties was referred by Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi for adjudication vide office order dated 06.06.2005. Pursuant thereto a statement of claim before the Labour Court was filed by respondent no. 1 against the petitioner i.e. M/s. Servokon System Limited as well as respondent no. 2 i.e. M/s. Alpine Servo Engineering Pvt. Limited. The stand of the petitioner is that petitioner was never served before the Labour Court. As per petitioner, it had come to know of the ex parte award only on 18.01.2010 when a notice was received from the respondent no. 1/workman for compliance of the said ex parte award. On coming to know of the same the present petition has been filed.

(2.) LD . counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was never served before the Labour Court nor petitioner has its office at the address given in the statement of claim i.e. at plot no. 52 -54, Ganesh Park, Rasheed Market, Delhi -110051. It is stated that Alpine Servo Engineering Pvt. Limited i.e. respondent no. 2 was having an office there at the relevant time. It is submitted that there is no service on petitioner before the Ld. Labour Court. It is further submitted that petitioner has nothing to do with Alpine Servo Engineering Pvt. Limited. Ld. counsel for petitioner has further contended that there is no service on respondent no. 2 i.e. M/s. Alpine Servo Engineering Pvt. Limited before the Labour Court. It is submitted that the Labour Court has proceeded to decide the matter without any service on aforesaid party. It is contended that when the statement of claim was filed against the petitioner as well as respondent no. 2, the Labour Court ought to have ensured service on respondent no. 2 also. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that respondent no. 1 had worked with him only from June 2002 to December 2002, that is, for about 68 days.

(3.) ON the other hand the counsel for respondent no. 1 has submitted that petitioner was served before the Labour Court and it did not appear deliberately.