LAWS(DLH)-2009-2-197

KARDIO CONTROL COMPANY Vs. JITENDER SINGH

Decided On February 09, 2009
Kardio Control Company Appellant
V/S
Jitender Singh and Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the ex - parte award dated 20th May, 2005 passed by the Ld. Labour Court -II, Karkardooma, New Delhi in I.D. No. 115/2003 titled Inter Cardio (P) Ltd. (ii) Kardio Control Co. v. Jitender Singh. By virtue of the impugned award the Ld. Labour Court held that the services of the respondent/workman were illegally and unjustifiably terminated from September, 2001 without payment of his dues or any notice, and accordingly, he was directed to be reinstated with 50% of back wages along with the continuity of service and other legal benefits. The award had been published and became enforceable w.e.f. 28th April, 2006. The petitioner learnt about the award only when the recovery notice was served on them and have accordingly challenged the said award by filing the writ petition before the High Court of Delhi on 7th September, 2006.

(2.) THE petitioner/management in the writ petition had essentially challenged the award on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the services of the respondent/workman were never terminated. It is alleged that he had in fact taken a loan of Rs. 15,000/ - on 9th April, 2001 and thereafter he had voluntarily tendered his resignation to the petitioner/management w.e.f. 21st September, 2001 as he had failed to repay the loan amount.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The statement of claim is purported to have been filed by the respondent/workman on 28th August, 2003 and the notice of the statement of claim was issued to the petitioner/management through Process Server and RC cover returnable on 13th January, 2004. On 13th January, 2004 a report was filed by the Process Server and on the basis of the said report the petitioner/management was taken to have been served by affixation and as nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioner/management, accordingly, they were proceeded ex -parte. Thereafter, the ex -parte evidence against the petitioner/management was recorded.