SONI ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. WORKMAN, HARPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the award dated 7th April, 1997 passed by the learned Labour Court -VII in ID No. 433/1988 titled as The Workman Sh.Harpal Singh v. The Management of Soni Engineering Works.

(2.) BY virtue of the aforesaid award, the learned Labour Court has come to a finding that the services of the respondent/workman was illegally and unjustifiably terminated w.e.f 25th November, 1987 and accordingly, the Labour Court was pleased to direct the reinstatement of the respondent /workman with payment of back wages @ Rs. 600/ - per month.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and gone through the award. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that there was violation of principles of natural justice on account of not having been given an opportunity to cross examine the respondent /workman or an opportunity to adduce the evidence is not correct on account of the fact that the petitioner was served and had put in appearance. It had even thereafter chosen to file its written statement. This is indicative of the fact that the petitioner /Management was served. The petitioner /Management could pray for setting aside the ex parte award only if they were able to show that they were prevented by 'sufficient cause' to appear in the matter and adduce the evidence in the matter. The ground which has been given in the writ petition for setting aside the ex parte award is that there was a dispute between the partners. This is in my view does not constitute a 'sufficient cause'. The petitioner /Management if it has chosen to abstain from appearance before the learned Labour Court then it has done so at its own peril and it is not open to the petitioner /Management to content that on account of its abstinence, there was violation of principles of natural justice which would warrant the setting aside of the ex parte award. Accordingly, this contention of the counsel is without any merit.