RAVI PAL Vs. DAYA SHANKAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of directions thereby quashing / setting aside the order dated 03.07.2015, 19.01.2010, 27.09.2010 and award dated 29.01.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court IX in ID No. 244/2007 and directing the authority to rehear and decide the case afresh after giving full opportunity to the petitioner.

(2.) It is alleged by the petitioner that it is the sole proprietary concern of Mr Ravi Pal who is engaged in the business of printing press for printing stationary and all kinds of jobs. Due to his business activities he has to remain mainly outdoors to visit clients and prospective clients to procure printing orders and business. He is also required to travel out of Delhi for that purpose. The respondent Daya Shankar (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was engaged by him in December, 1997 as plate maker. However, his work was not satisfactory and he was warned time and again by the management. Thereupon, the workman stopped reporting for duty in the beginning of the year 1999. In April, 2003 the workman again approached the petitioner for job saying that he was in dire need of job. Taking pity on him, the petitioner asked him to work as an attendant to his mentally challenged young son. The workman agreed and thereafter started working as a personal employee of the petitioner from April, 2003. Since the workman was found to be misbehaving and maltreating the mentally challenged child and was reprimanded for the same, he stopped reporting for duty from October, 2003. The petitioner received legal notice dated 05.04.2004 from the workman through advocate alleging therein that he was not paid his regular salary since 1997 and he was not allowed to join services since November, 2003. The matter was referred to conciliation where parties tried to settle the matter but conciliation failed. On account of failure of conciliation, the appropriate government vide order dated 12.12.2007 referred the matter to Labour Court for adjudication. The petitioner did not hear anything from the respondent workman nor received any notice from the court either through ordinary process or by post or courier. The petitioner was shocked to receive notice dated 29.08.2014 issued by Mr K.R. Verma, Joint Labour Commissioner, Delhi in which it was mentioned that pursuant to award dated 29.01.2014 passed in ID No. 244 of 2007 by the Labour Court, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,68,192/-. Thereafter, the petitioner engaged an advocate and on inspection of record it was revealed that the petitioner was proceeded ex parte and an ex parte award dated 29.01.2011 was passed. Thereafter, an application for setting aside the ex parte order / award was moved which was dismissed by the Labour Court vide impugned order dated 03.07.2015.

(3.) The impugned order, alongwith the other orders, have been challenged by filing this writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that although by the order dated 01.03.2008, the petitioner was ordered to be served by registered post, courier and process server, yet the notice was sent only through process server and not by any other mode. As per the provisions of Order V Rule 17 CPC, if the respondent refused to accept notice or is absent from his residence or place of business and then the process server is required to affix the copy of summons at his residence or place of business. If the Court was of the opinion that the respondent is keeping out of the way to avoid service of summons then as per Order V Rule 20 CPC, the Court should order service by substituted mode which was not resorted to in the instant case. Moreover, as per Rule 18 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, the summons are required to be sent by ordinary process and registered post. If the other party refused to accept the summons, the same should be sent under certificate of posting.