KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI Vs. MAHESH BHATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a Mandi. Respondent No. 1 was in the employment of the petitioner. His services were dispensed with by the petitioner. This gave rise to making of a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court, Peethampur by the State Government. Accordingly, Labour Court seized of the reference being Reference No. 40/id/reference/2001. Notices were issued to both parties, i. e. , petitioner and respondent No. 1. On being served, the respondent No. 1 participated in the reference and submitted his claim petition praying for setting aside of his termination order on factual as well as legal submissions. The petitioner despite service, did not choose to appear before the Labour Court.

(2.) EVENTUALLY by award dated 5-9-2002, the Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the respondent No. 1. It was Held that respondent No. 1 was working with the petitioner w. e. f. 542-1989 continuously and has thus, acquired the status of an employee entitling him to take benefit of all Labour Laws. It was also found that before dispensing with the service of respondent No. 1 on 25-11-2000, no prior charge-sheet was given by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1, nor any inquiry was held on account of misconduct for punishment. It was also held that it was also not a case of legal retrenchment because no prior compensation as contemplated under Section 25 (ff) of the Act has been awarded to the respondent No. 1. It was, therefore, held that it is a case of an illegal retrenchment and hence, respondent No. 1 should be reinstated in service alongwith backwages because respondent No. 1 was not found gainfully employed after his services were dispensed with.

(3.) THE petitioner then applied for setting aside of an exparte award by submitting an application on 23-4-2002 inter alia on the ground that they did not have any knowledge of the proceedings. It is this application which came to be rejected by the Labour Court on 12-8-2002 (Annexure P-5) holding that petitioner was duly served with the notice of the reference made to the Labour Court and, therefore, the cause stated in the application can not be said to be sufficient cause. It is against this order, the petitioner has'felt aggrieved and filed this writ petition.