GUNVANEET KAUR @ RENEE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated 17.7.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh, vide which the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) filed by respondent No. 3-workman for claiming wages for two months has been allowed and he has been held entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as salary for the months of April and May, 2008.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the ex parte order was passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court taking into consideration the evidence led by the workman. He contends that the case was fixed for 1.5.2009 when the petitioner could not appear before the Court as she was unwell. In support of this assertion, certificate of Dr. R.K. Singal dated 28.4.2009 has been placed on record as Annexure P-5. He, on this basis, submits that the absence of the proprietor of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Gunvaneet Kaur @ Renee was not intentional or deliberate but because of her ill health. It is further the submission of the counsel that Mrs. Gunvaneet kaur @ Renee had to go to London on 19.6.2009 from where she returned on 27.7.2009 and by that time, the Labour Court had proceeded to pass its order dated 17.7.2009. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order deserves to be set aside as the proprietor of petitioner No. 1 did not deliberately absent herself from the Court proceedings.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. It is not the case of the petitioner that she was not aware of the date fixed before the Labour Court i.e. 1.5.2009. The certificate dated 28.4.2009 (Annexure P-5) which has been placed on record is totally devoid of the relevant information as no address or place where the same has been issued, has been mentioned. That apart, if the petitioner had come to know that she was unwell and could not attend the Court proceedings, she could have sent an intimation to that effect to the Court, which is not the case of the petitioner here. On 1.5.2009, when the case was taken up for hearing and no one had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner-management, the Court had proceeded against the management ex parte. Further, the conduct of the petitioner is reflected from the fact that despite being aware that the case is fixed before the Labour Court on 1.5.2009, she proceeded to London on 19.6.2009 without verifying the fate of the case. It is an admitted case that the petitioner visited the Labour Court on 31.7.2009 and came to know about the fate of the case but the present writ petition has been filed, only now in January, 2010. No application was moved before the Labour Court for setting aside the ex parte order dated 17.7.2009. That apart, the claim made before the Labour Court by workman-respondent No. 3 was for the salary for the months April and May, 2008, which amount comes to Rs. 10,000/- only. The evidence produced by respondent No. 3-workman has been duly appreciated by the Labour Court wherein he has been able to prove that he was getting a salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month and he had submitted his resignation with effect from 27.5.2008. He has further proved that he had returned all the articles which were handed over to him by the Management when he took up the assignment and a proper receipt was received by him from the concerned official of the company. The findings as recorded by the Labour Court are fully justified and based on the records, which do not call for any interference by this Court. A meager amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been granted on an application moved by the respondent-workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Act which has been duly proved to be found due from the petitioner-Management.