ANUP KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SURENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY virtue of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court dated 21.05.2015 vide which the application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex -parte award dated 14.12.2011 was dismissed.

(2.) IT is the case of the respondent workman that he was working at the post of Operator with the petitioner management since 15.11.2007 at the last drawn wages of Rs. 4,000/ - per month. The management was not providing certain legal facilities like appointment letter, attendance register, wages register, bonus, PF etc. and when he demanded the same, the management became annoyed and illegally terminated his services with effect from 13.07.2009 without any justified reasons. As a result, he raised an industrial dispute. Vide order dated 14.05.2010 appropriate government made a reference of the dispute to the Labour Court in the following terms:

(3.) THEREAFTER , the management moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex -parte award on the ground that the award was passed only on the basis of affixation whereas the report of the process server states that none of the witness has signed the service report and the process server had given the report stating that Anup Kumar Gupta had refused to accept the summons but his identity was never established. Moreover, the notice was not sent intentionally at the residence of Anup Kumar Gupta so that he could have contested the case of the workman. It was further stated that service by way of affixation was effected upon the management on 23.09.2011 but no photographs were taken of the affixation. Moreover, applicant Anup Kumar Gupta does not have anything to do with the Universal Electronics (T.V. Factory). He is neither the owner/partner/proprietor of Universal Electronics (T.V. Factory) nor he has anything to do with the workman, as such, the award is bad in law. No oral or documentary proof has been given by the workman in respect of ownership of Universal Electronics (T.V. Factory) in any of the proceedings against Anup Kumar Gupta. The workman might succeed against Universal Electronics (T.V. Factory) but Anup Kumar Gupta has nothing to do with it. Anup Kumar Gupta was unaware about the passing of the award till he received notice from the executing court in the last week of November, 2014. The application was contested by the workman. Vide impugned order dated 21.05.2015 the application was dismissed by observing that the applicant Anup Kumar Gupta intentionally avoided the service of summons during the pendency of the industrial dispute.