METHODIST GIRLS INTER COLLEGE BAREILLY Vs. ALKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. Heard Sri Vivek Saran, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S. S. Nigam for the contesting Respondent No. 1. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 20-2-2004 passed by Respondent No. 2 whereby the claim of the respondent-workman has been allowed in toto. A perusal of the said impugned Award, as well as the order sheet (which has been filed by the respondent) go to show that proceedings against the petitioner were ex parte. THE Labour Court has mentioned in the order that notice to the petitioner- employer had been sent by registered post and since the same was not returned back within 30 days, the petitioner/employer would be presumed to have been served. No further efforts were made by the Labour Court to ensure that the employer be duly served. Deemed service should not be taken as a matter of routine but should be resorted to in special circumstances after adequate efforts have been made by the Court concerned to ensure that the contesting party is duly served.