MANORANJAN TV Vs. NEERAJ SINGH RAHTOR & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the ex-parte award dated 01.12.2014 passed by the learned Labour Court IX, Delhi in I.D.No.663/2011. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the consequential recovery notice dated 30.12.2016, whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit with the respondent no.2 a sum of Rs.4,97,000.00 alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. towards backwages of the respondent no.1 as directed under the impugned award.

(2.) Mr.Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned award, has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to be represented before the learned Labour Court. He states that even though the respondent no.1 was well aware that the petitioner had already changed its address from C118 Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi to A-175, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi the respondent no.1 had deliberately mentioned only the old address of the petitioner in its claim statement before the learned Labour Court, due to which the petitioner was not aware about the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court.

(3.) Mr.Chhibber submits that the petitioner learnt about the impugned said award only after receipt of a demand notice dated 20.01.2016 issued by the respondent no.1, whereafter the petitioner took steps to inspect the record from where it transpired that one Mr.Piyush Chabra had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on one date, before the Labour Court whereafter he stopped appearing and the petitioner was, therefore, proceeded ex parte, leading to the passing of the impugned ex parte award.