AKASH ELECTRONICS Vs. SURESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/management has filed the writ petition challenging the ex -parte award dated 22nd September, 2003 passed by Shri. T.R. Naval, Ld. Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Karkardooma Court in ID No. 75/2001. By virtue of the aforesaid award the termination of service of the respondent/workman by the petitioner/management w.e.f. 3rd March, 2000 was held to be illegal and unjustified, and accordingly, the Ld. Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent/workman with payment of full back wages @ Rs. 3500/ - per month.

(2.) THE petitioner/management feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award has preferred the present writ petition challenging the award both on merit as well as on the question of the petitioner having been proceeded ex -parte by the Ld. Labour Court, without effecting a valid service on the petitioner/management on account of which they did not get an opportunity to present their case. The respondent/workman has not filed its counter affidavit despite opportunity having been given.

(3.) A bare perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that as far as possible, the notice/summons must be served on the petitioner/management personally or by registered post. The purpose of service is to give a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner/management to contest the claim of the respondent/workman. It has been visualized in the rule that there may be persons or management who/which may be indulging in dilatory tactics and for that purpose they may refuse to accept the service or the registered AD cover containing the notice or the summon as the case may be. In such an event the Ld. Labour Court has been given the power to issue the notices/summons under postal certificate. If a letter is addressed to the addressee under postal certificate and it is shown to have been dispatched in the ordinary discharge of the official business then the Court can very well draw a presumption of fact that the said notice/summon has been served on the petitioner/management. This is a presumption of fact which is rebuttable presumption and if the party so presumed to be served discharges the onus that the notice has not been received by them. This is also conditioned by the fact that the UPC cover has not been received back.