CHAUDHARY KNITTING MACHINE PVT LTD Vs. GHANSHYAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition filed by the management (the petitioner herein) is directed against an ex-parte award dated 07. 05. 2003 directing reinstatement of the workman (the respondent herein) with 50% back wages and benefit of continuity of service.

(2.) THE impugned award is assailed by the management inter-alia on the ground that it was not served with the notice of the proceedings pending before the labour Court and for that reason, the management could not participate in the proceedings before the court below. The record of the Labour Court was requisitioned by this Court and the same has been perused by me. A perusal of the lower court record reveals that the notice of the proceedings pending before the Labour Court was duly served upon the management (the petitioner herein) by the registered A. D. post. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. A. D. card showing service of notice of proceedings before the court below is at page 171 in the file of the lower court. This notice was served on the management for 10. 09. 2002 the date fixed before the court below. Since nobody appeared on behalf of the management despite service, the court below was fully justified in proceeding ex-parte against the management/ petitioner. It seems that the petitioner has taken a false stand regarding service in the writ petition knowing full well that it had received the notice of the proceedings pending before the court below. The conduct of the petitioner also needs to be mentioned here. This Court had passed an order dated 18. 03. 2009 under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay wages in terms of the award from the date of award to the respondent within four weeks from the said order and continue to pay him the amount of last drawn wages or the minimum wages for each month on or before 7 th of each succeeding English calender month till the decision of the writ petition. The liberty was also granted to the petitioner to ask the respondent to resume duties, if it so desire but the petitioner neither took the respondent back on duty nor paid him either the arrears or the future wages in terms of order dated 18. 03. 2009. It appears that the petitioner wants to keep the workman in continuing litigation for reasons best know to it. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed. CM Nos. 15359/2007 and 4042/2006 in WP (C)No. 4875/2006 Since the main writ petition has been dismissed, both these applications are also rendered infructuous and stand disposed of accordingly.