KAPUR SON Vs. N C T DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes act which has been filed by respondent No. 2/ workman, Sh. Bansu Ram.

(2.) THIS application, which is stated to have been filed on 4th April, 2006, came to be filed under the following circumstances : the workman, Bansu Ram filed a claim before the Labour Court alleging that he has been working with the management ever since 23rd August, 1968, and that his last drawn wages were Rs. 2800/- per month. He stated that his services were terminated on 19th March, 2002 in violation of the Principles of Natural justice and of the Labour Laws. The Labour Court found that although the management had been duly served in the matter, it had chosen to stay away from the proceedings. Consequently, on 17th January, 2004, the management was directed to be proceeded ex parte. After examining the case of the workman as also the evidence produced by him, the Labour Court concluded that his services were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial disputes Act. This decision came to be given on the unrebutted testimony and evidence of the workman. Consequently, the Labour Court directed that the workman, Bansu Ram be reinstated at his post along with back wages in terms of the last drawn wages @ of Rs. 2800/- per month or the minimum wages fixed for that post by the appropriate Government from time to time, whichever is higher w. e. f. 19th March, 2002 which was the date of termination of his service. It was also directed that the workman will be deemed to be in continuous service and be entitled to all consequential benefits in that respect.

(3.) THIS award which was passed on 1st July, 2004 by the Labour Court in ID no. 124/2003 is challenged on the sole ground that the requisite summons had never been served on the petitioner management and consequently the same deserves to be set aside. According to the petitioner, the ex parte award was received by it on 4th April, 2005 and it was on this date that the petitioner came to know of the pendency of the dispute before the Labour Court for the first time. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that in fact the signatures appended to the summons issued by the Labour Court in proof of delivery of the said summons upon the petitioner management which are stated to be appended by one of the partners of the petitioner management, have been forged. The petitioner's application for setting aside the ex parte award on the ground that the signatures of Sh. Ravinder Kapoor, partner of the petitioner management have been forged, also came up to be dismissed by the Labour Court. It is the petitioner's case that in this manner, a fraud has been perpetrated on the petitioner management, and therefore, the impugned award is in fact a nullity. The respondent/ workman contests this and says, inter alia, that in fact due service was effected on the petitioner management by way of registered post acknowledgment due, as also under postal certificate, and that the same is duly reflected from the records of the Labour Court.