SDB CISCO INDIA PVT LTD Vs. RAJENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The management is before this court challenging the ex-parte award dated 27.2.2009, passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon (for short, the Tribunal). The pleaded facts are that respondent No. 1-workman joined service with the petitioner as Security Guard on 1.11.2001. His services were terminated on 11.10.2004. A demand notice was issued by him on 13.10.2004. The Labour Department referred the dispute to the Tribunal on 19.12.2005. After notice was issued to the petitioner, none having appeared on its behalf despite service, it was directed to be proceeded against ex-parte on 10.3.2008. The ex-parte award was passed in favour of respondent No. 1 on 27.2.2009 granting reinstatement in service with back wages to the extent of 30% on the basis of last drawn salary. The petitioner having come to know about the ex-parte award when summon was received from the Labour Inspector for implementation thereof, the same was challenged before this court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that service of the petitioner was not properly effected. On 10.1.2008, the Tribunal directed for service of notice on the management on filing of a registered cover. The workman did not furnish the registered cover and got the notice issued through ordinary process. It was reported that the management had refused to accept the summon. Merely on that basis, the petitioner was directed to be proceeded against ex-parte. In fact, the petitioner was earlier functioning from a rented premises at L-1/G, Street-1 (Front Row), Mahipalpur, New Delhi, which was vacated w.e.f. 31.5.2006 and a notice to that effect was given to the landlord on 1.4.2006 (Annexure-P6). Thereafter, the petitioner had shifted its office to 93, Community Centre, Zamrudpur, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. As on the date when the summon was sent to the petitioner at the old address, it was not operating from there, there was no reason for refusal of service. In fact, the report had been procured. In case, an opportunity is granted, the petitioner will put its case on merits before the Tribunal as it should not be condemned unheard. Without there being any material on record, the Tribunal has awarded back wages to the extent of 30%.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1- workman submitted that when despite service none represented the petitioner before the Tribunal, it had no other option but to proceed ex-parte. No statement of a witness or the Process Server was required to be recorded in the order sheet. Merely on the basis of report of the Registry of the Court, the order is passed directing ex-parte proceedings against a party. He further submitted that the petitioner had knowledge about the reference having been sent to the court as copy of order dated 14.12.2005 (Annexure-P2) was sent by the government to the petitioner as well, intimating reference of dispute to the Tribunal. He further submitted that even as per the pleaded case of the petitioner itself, it got knowledge of the award passed by the Tribunal through a notice from Labour Inspector at the address which is claimed to be old one from where the office had been shifted way back in the year 2006. The aforesaid notice was issued to the petitioner on 17.2.2010 (Annexure-P4). Considering the aforesaid facts, the claim made by the petitioner lacks bonafide as apparently it had knowledge about the pendency of proceedings but still did not choose to put in appearance to defend the case. He further submitted that even otherwise sufficient material was produced on record by the workman to show that he had been employed and his services were terminated illegally. There was no delay in raising a demand or reference of dispute to the Tribunal. Despite the fact that the award was passed way back on 27.2.2009, the workman has still not been taken back in service though there is no interim stay.