M/S. BIKRAM BUS SERVICE (REGISTERED) MOGA THROUGH ITS PARTNER PRITAM SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, BHATINDA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Messrs, Bikram Bus Service (Registered) has challenged through this writ petition, the award of the Labour Court, Bhatinda, dated July 31, 1989, as well as order of the Labour Court dated April 26, 1991 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court, refusing to set aside ex parte award aforesaid.

(2.) The allegation of the petitioner was that notice of the proceedings before the Labour Court was never served upon the petitioner and it was subsequently when the petitioner came to know of passing of the award, an application for setting aside ex parte award was made, which was wrongly rejected. The writ petition has been contested by the workman Swaran Singh inter alia alleging that there was no due service on the petitioner and the application for setting aside the ex parte award was made beyond the period of limitation. Original records of the Labour Court were called and they have been perused. Swaran Singh had impleaded the Management as Taj Bus Services (Registered) Moga through its Managing Director (2) M/s. Taj Bus Service (Registered), Moga, A.O. Faridkot Group B through Shri Janjodh Singh and Kanwaljit Singh partners c/o Gill Bus Service Faridkot (M/s. Bikram Bus Service (Registered) Moga, A.O. Faridkot through Sh. Ranjodh Singh and Kanwaljit Singh partners). Likewise notices were issued to the respondent as such, copies of which are at page 12 and 13, the registered envelop which contained such a notice was received back with the report that the addressee had left. The proceedings of the Labour Court show that the workman had represented that he had sent notices to the to the Management. Inspite of that, the Presiding Officer on March 30, 1989 reported that fresh notice should go to the Management along with copy of that order that failure on the part of the respondent (Management) would lead to proceeding ex parte. The file of the Labour Court does not show-that the aforesaid order was complied with and fresh notice along with copy of the order was sent. In such situation, it was not expected of the Labour Court to proceed ex parte against the Management and pass the award.

(3.) Since there was no due service of the proceedings on the petitioner, after coming to know of the ex parte award, the petitioner could approach the Labour Court for setting the same. The Labour Court was not justified on the material discussed above to reject the application. At this stage, it is not considered appropriate to make any further comments as to whether the Management as was described before the Labour Court is the proper employer. It is left to the Labour Court if question is raised by the petitioner that the same would be determined on evidence to be produced. Suffice it to say that M/s. Bikram Bus Service (Registered) was not properly served. The aforesaid award and order of the Labour Court are quashed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Labour Court on April 20, 1992, and the Labour Court would decide the case afresh. There will be no order as to costs. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly