G SESBAGIRI RAO Vs. LABOUR COURT GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of an appropriate Writ to quash the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur dated the 6th day of August, 1975.

(2.) The petitioner in this writ petition is the bus owner of A.P.G. 6411 and the soeond respondent herein was a conductor in the employment of the writ petitioner. The services of the respondent-conductor had been W.P.No. 3163/1976 Dt. 15-11-1978 terminated by the Petitioner-bus owner which had given rise to the filing of an application by the conductor-respondent under Section 33-G (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming earned wages for the mon'h of January and one month's pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation in all amounting to Rs. 1,339-50,

(3.) The matter was heard by the Labour Court, Guntur and was disposed of by its order dated 6th day of August, 1975. By that order which is now sought to be quashed, the Labour Court found that the respondent-bus conductor was entitled to a sum of Rs. 628/- and accordingly directed the present writ petitioner to pay that amount to the respondent-conductor together with costs of Rs. 50/-. The only ground on which this order of the Labour Court is challenged before us is that the present writ-petitioner had not been served with the notice of Industrial Dispute, as is required by Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules. It is admitted and also found as a fact that a notice was ordered to the present writ-petitioner in the first instance and it was returned with a postal endorsement "not available". Thereupon a second notice was again ordered and that was also returned undelivered with a postal endorsement "evading to take delivery". In those circumstances, the Labour Court found it unnecessary to order notice once again to the writ petitioner. From the facts, it is clear that the writ petitioner had not been served. la the first instance, the endorsement says he was not available and in return to the second notice, we have got only a postal endorsement "evading to take delivery". The question therefore is whether this postal endorsement "evading to take delivery" is a sufficient compliance with the requirements of Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules. Rule 20 says inter alia that a notice, summons, process or order may be served either personally or by registered post. This rule requires that there must be service either personally or by the method of registered post. In this case, the facts are clear to show that there is no service at all either personally or by registered Post. It is therefore the complaint of Mr. Dwarakanath, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the requirements of Rule 20 are not complied with. To this, Mr. Raja Rao, the learned Government pleader answered by saying that in a case where there is evasion to take delivery of the notice, Rule 20 must be taken to have been complied with. He referred to Sec. 27 of the General Clause Act (Central) and also cases decided on the basis of that section like Bhagwan Radhakishen vs. I.T Commissioner He also made a reference to Section 114.of the Evidence Act. In as much as the facts are not in dispute and what has happened in this case was only an evasion to take delivery, relevance of Section 114 of the Evidence Act is difficult to appreciate. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, which is a Central enactment has obviously no application to the rules made by a State Government and therefore the case reported in Bhagwan Radhna Kishe vs. I.T, Commissioner would not be in point. The only question therefore which has to be considered is where law requires that a person shall be served and where the record shows that man had not bsen served although abortive attempts have been made twice whether it can be said that Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules are complied with. The question can bs answered only by noting the fact that the notice is the first limb and that too a very vital limb in any proceeding and the requirement of such an important provision cannot easily be dispensed with by an implication read by the courts into ihe rules. In a case where there is an evasion to take delivery, Civil Procedure Code does not treat that act as equivalent to service. It only empowers the court after being satisfied about the evasion to order substituted service implying thereby that evasion is not equivalent to service. In this case, we do not have under Rule 20 any provision for a substituted service and Rule 20 as it stands today insists upon either personal service or service by registered post. What should happen in case a person evades to take notice is not provided for. As the rules stand now. it must be taken that its requirement by personal service or service through registered post is not complied with. Considering the importance of the provision for notice and the fact that what was stated in the judgment is not that the writ petitioner had refused to take delivery, but only evaded to take delivery, we feel it proper to held that the requiremsnts of Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Disputes are not satisfied. In the circumstances' we quash the order of the Labour Court, Guntur, but direct the Labour Court to proceed with the matter after hearing both parties. The writ petitioner says that now after all that has happened no further notice is necessary even for his participating in the proceedings before the court.