LAXMAN Vs. HARIOM FORGING (P) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the Order, dtd. 25/8/2022 of the Learned Single Judge passed in C.W.P. No.18794 of 2022 titled Laxman @ Laxman Rawat v. Hariom Forging (P) Ltd., wherein the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant-Writ Petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) Challenge before the learned Single Judge by the Workman was to the Order, dtd. 3/3/2022 (Annexure P8) passed by the Labour Court-III, Faridabad wherein it had allowed the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, dtd. 25/3/2019, which was in favour of the AppellantWorkman. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Writ Petition, came to the conclusion that the Management had been proceeded ex parte by the Labour Court on the first date when the service report was placed before it.

(3.) The stand of the Management was that it engaged one Mr. Samar Singh, Advocate to represent the matter who had not put in appearance which led to the ex parte proceedings. Eventually, the award had been passed on 16/5/2019 and at that stage, the Management had come to know about the said fact and it had engaged another Counsel, namely, Mr. G.C. Nagpal, who made enquiry regarding the status of the case and it was revealed that the Management was proceeded against ex parte as the authorized representative had not put in appearance on behalf of the Management on 25/2/2009. Thereafter, Counsel had applied for the certified copy of the Award, dtd. 16/5/2019, which further revealed that the same had been published on 28/5/2019. He obtained the copies of the record from the Labour Court to get the ex parte award set aside. Thereafter, C.W.P. No.26579 of 2019 was filed by the Management raising challenge to the order whereby the ex parte award had been passed. Liberty was given to approach the Labour Court in accordance with law and the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 19/9/2019 with the said liberty. Thereafter, application was filed before the Labour Court on 20/12/2019 and eventually, there was delay of merely 3 months, which was condoned, which was held to be reasonable approach taken by the Labour Court by the learned Single Judge, which was in consonance with the provisions, principles and philosophy of law. The argument that it became enforceable after 30 days of publication and that would be a Decree and that there was bar, was rejected by noticing the fact that the Labour Court was not rendered functus officio, in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. v. Phool Chand, 2018 (2) LLN 555 (SC) : AIR 2018 SC 2670, which was a Judgment on a specific reference to a Three Judge Bench. Resultantly, the Writ Petition was dismissed.