BAJRANG SECURITY SERVICES Vs. B S CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the ex -parte award dated 9th June 2004 passed by learned Labour Court No. V ID No. 58/2001 in the case titled Bajrang Security Service v. B.S. Chauhan. By virtue of the aforesaid award the learned Labour Court has arrived at a finding of the fact that the respondent/workman was employed with the petitioner/management as a gunman and he was illegally and unjustifiably terminated w.e.f. 01.01.2000. It has been also stated in the impugned award that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, however, so far as the payment of back wages are concerned, only 75% of the back wages were awarded at the rate of Rs. 3018/ - per month or the minimum wages fixed for that post by the appropriate government from time to time whichever is higher since the date of termination of his services.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that after cross -examining the respondent/workman on 17th May, 2004 the matter was adjourned to 31st May, 2004 on which date the petitioner/management was expected to lead evidence, but the petitioner the sole proprietor of the security agency met with an accident on account of slip of his two wheeler scooter on 29th May, 2004 itself. Therefore, he could not attend the Labour Court on 31st May, 2004 as he was advised complete bed rest by the doctor of District Hospital Ghaziabad for a period of two weeks. It is further alleged that after recovery from the injury the petitioner visited the learned Labour Court on 11th June, 2004 and on enquiry from the staff of the concerned learned Labour Court, the petitioner was directed to go to the Office of the Labour Commissioner and find out from there as to what had happened in the matter. The petitioner states that he visited the Office of Labour Commissioner and since he could not get any credible information except that it was informed to him that he will receive a copy of the award at his residence, accordingly, he did not chase the matter further. It is alleged that he received a recovery notice from the Implementation Cell in the second week of August 2005 regarding non implementation of the award which was passed on 9th June, 2004 ex -parte against the petitioner. In the impugned award the petitioner learnt for the first time that the matter had been decided against the petitioner in as much as the respondent/workman had been given the benefit of reinstatement with continuity of service and payment of 75% of the back wages w.e.f. 01.01.2000. Accordingly, he engaged Mr. Arvind Trivedi and Mr. Sudhir Sinha, Advocates and had the judicial record inspected on 3rd September, 2005 and 4th September, 2005. It was only on inspection that the petitioner learnt that an ex -parte award has been passed against him. They filed an application for setting aside the ex -parte award as well as the ex -parte proceedings before the learned Labour Court on 21st September, 2005 which was dismissed on the ground that the learned Labour Court have become functus officio. Thereof the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for setting aside the ex -parte award.

(3.) THE main contention which was been advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioner had suffered an injury of his ankle because of accident of his scooter which confined him to bed for a period of two weeks. Therefore, he could not attend and produce his evidence before the learned Labour Court on 29th May, 2004. The petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the medical certificate which have been issued by the District (MMG) Hospital Ghaziabad wherein the petitioner has stated to have been issued a certificate that on account of sprain on right ankle he was advised bed rest for two weeks w.e.f. 29th May, 2004. The learned Counsel contends that the petitioner was prevented from appearing in the learned Labour Court and on 11th June, 2004 when he appeared and did not get any cogent information, he approached the Office of the Labour Commissioner without any result. He took that the matter has been closed because the respondent/workman himself had abandoned the service.