BIJENDER SINGH Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed as a Cycle Mechanic and Rim Fitter with the respondent cycle store in Faridabad. He was appointed in January, 1990 on a monthly salary of Rs. 6500/- per month and other service benefits. After he had put in about 18 years of continuous service, his services were terminated in September, 2008 without following the procedure for retrenchment under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act").

(2.) Feeling aggrieved, he raised a dispute and demanded reinstatement through a demand notice dated 28th April, 2009 with copies to the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Circle-I, Faridabad. The conciliation proceedings failed after about a month. The failure report was forwarded to the Labour Commissioner, Haryana. The appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Faridabad and parties were directed to appear on 4th February, 2010. On 4th February, 2010, the petitioner says that his file was not traceable and the reference was dismissed in default of his appearance. He submits that his previous authorized representative had not intimated the fate of the case to him, upon which, he engaged a new authorized representative who after enquiry, informed the workman that the reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act has been dismissed when neither of the parties were present on the first date of hearing on 4th February, 2010. He then applied to the Labour Court for restoration of his case pleading what he thought was sufficient reason and cause for non-appearance. The application was filed on 4th January, 2012 but the same has been declined by the Court a quo by order dated 13th July, 2012. In the restoration application, the Labour Court met delay of 23 months in presenting the application which period was not sufficiently explained. There were found no specific averments in the application with respect to the mode of gaining knowledge of the order and when it was passed. At the stage of the restoration application, the management appeared and was represented by an authorized representation who urged that the file was available in the Court on the relevant date and the Labour Court was within its jurisdiction to proceed ex parte and in absence of appearance, submitting claim statement and producing evidence of the claimant in support of the claim which had led to declining of relief.

(3.) This is the pass which has brought the workman to this Court in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing both the award and order as unjust and the first of which suffered from lack of due notice and opportunity of hearing.