KAMAL KALRA Vs. RAMDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks to challenge an ex-parte award dated 17. 02. 1997 in I. D. No. 5/1991 directing reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) THE impugned ex-parte award is sought to be set aside by the petitioner mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that the petitioner's firm M/s Jatin sales Corporation never existed at C-28, Gupta Colony, Vijay Nagar, Delhi 110009; where it was purportedly served by way of pasting. The second ground is that the respondent never worked with the petitioner in any capacity. In fact, the relationship of employer and employee is denied by the petitioner management.

(3.) MS. Pinki Anand, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent workman, has contended that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm and he was duly served with the notice of the proceedings pending before the Labour Court through his brother Shri Vijay kumar and since he refused to receive the notice, the service was effected on the respondent through pasting. She has referred to the report of the Process server (which is at page 48 in the file of the Lower Court ). The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that the respondent workman had worked as Machine-man with the petitioner firm for about eight years before termination of his services. She has also submitted that demand notice was also sent by the respondent to the petitioner firm at the same address, i. e. , C-28, Gupta Colony, Vijay Nagar, Delhi 110009 by registered post as well as by U. P. C. Post. The contention of Ms. Pinki Anand is that the service on the brother of proprietor of the management firm is a valid service and this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution cannot go into the question of service which, according to her, has been duly considered before the Labour Court by proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner firm.