BALBIR SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-workman has approached this court for setting aside of ex-parte award dated 15.1.2008 and further the order dated 7.9.2010 passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the application for restoration of the reference before the Tribunal was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the pleaded facts are that the petitioner-workman was appointed by respondent No. 2-management to operate power loom in 1993.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the demand notice got served by the petitioner, he had mentioned his permanent residential address as well as the address of the authorised representative, however, still when the matter was referred to the Tribunal by the appropriate government, no notice was sent to the petitioner at his permanent address, rather the same was sent only to the authorised representative, who had been engaged only for representing the petitioner before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer. Even if the authorised representative had received the information about reference of dispute to the Tribunal, he was not interested in the matter. Even when the matter was taken up by the Tribunal, no notice was served upon the petitioner at his permanent address. It was again sent to the authorised representative only.