ROSHAN ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. RAJENDER PARSAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged by means of this petition ex parte award dated 20th February 1995 published on 10th April 1995 in the Delhi Gazette. According to the petitioner, no notice was ever served upon the petitioner and the petitioner did not come to know of the aforesaid proceedings. It may be noted at the outset that even after show cause notice was issued and served upon the respondents No.2 and 3, they have not appeared. Interim order dated March 4, 1996 was passed staying the recovery proceedings pursuant to the award and this order was made absolute till the disposal of the writ petition while issuing rule in the writ petition on September 3, 1996. The respondents have not appeared even thereafter. The impugned award is liable to be set aside on one ground alone, i.e. the manner in which notice was directed to be served upon the petitioner herein in the Labour Court. When this matter had come up before the Labour Court on 5th May 1989, the Presiding Officer was on leave. In these circumstances, reader of the Court should have fixed the matter for some date for proper orders. However, instead of doing so, the reader passed an order directing the service of notice to the petitioner through UPC.

(2.) Rule 18 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 framed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 providing for service of notice reads as under: -

(3.) As per the aforesaid Rule, service is to be effected by registered post. When a party does not appear in spite thereof, then the order is to be passed for serving the said party by UPC. Reference was received by the Labour Court, Case was not registered and no orders were made for sending the summons. However, when the case came up before the Labour Court on 5th May 1989, a report was produced that process server had served the summons on the petitioner on 27th April, 1989. The process server submitted the report stating that the petitioner had accepted the summons on 27th April 1989. It is the case of the petitioner that summons were never served upon or received by the petitioner on 27th April, 1989. Thus, it was for the Presiding Officer to see the aforesaid facts and decide as to whether to act upon the report of the process server or not. However, as mentioned above, the Presiding Officer was on leave on that date and the reader assumed the role of the Presiding Officer and treating that the summons were accepted by the petitioner and the petitioner was still absent, the reader ordered the notice to be served upon the petitioner Nb.1 by UPC. This act of the reader is without any lawful authority. He could not have acted upon the report which was essentially the function of the Presiding Officer, He usurped the said function and ordered notice by UPC and on that basis the petitioner was proceeded ex parte. I am of the view that the aforesaid proceedings are void and there was no proper service on the petitioner. The impugned award is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court to decide the reference after notice to the parties.