ROY BROTHERS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dinesh Thapa joined as a driver with the Management of M/s. Roy Brothers, E-25 A/1, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, a partnership concern in August, 1996. Somewhere in June/July, 1999, it was noticed by the management that he consumed alcohol at work and was warned to be careful in future, failing which his services would be dispensed with. On 3.11.1999, the driver was caught red-handed stealing petrol from the car. When questioned, he even made an attempt to physically assault the partner of the firm. The workman left abruptly after the incident. A complaint was also lodged with the concerned police station at Saket requesting them to take appropriate action against the workman. On 12.11.1999, the management sent a legal notice to the respondent No. 2 directing him to come forward and amicably settle the matter to which there was no response from the workman. Again on 11.4.2000 an attempt was made by the petitioner to settle the matter and a meeting was fixed at the office of the Counsel for the petitioner, wherein the workman never turned up. In the meanwhile, the workman had raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government. As the management failed to appear before the Labour Court in March, 2004, the management was ordered to be proceeded against ex pane in those proceedings.

(2.) The appropriate Government on the basis of the notice issued by the workman had made a reference under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 4th August, 2000. This reference was answered by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-VIII, Delhi, vide award dated 26.11.2002 wherein the Court granted reinstatement with continuity of service to the workman, but restricted the relief of back wages to the extent of 40%. The management has questioned the correctness and legality of this award, in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the very outset, it may be noticed that the workman has not impugned this award, thus, the relief granted by the Labour Court has attained finality as far as the workman is concerned.

(3.) The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the award of the Labour Court is based on no evidence and the Court has misapplied the settled principles of law in deciding the reference against the management. It is also argued that as the management was never served, no exparte proceedings could be taken against the management and in any case the application for setting aside the exparte order ought to have been allowed, thus, the Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction lawfully vested in it.