STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KISHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kishan Singh - first respondent (now dead represented by his legal representatives and referred to hereinafter the workman) was appointed as mortar mate in the Public Works Department of the State Government on 1.6.1978 on work-charge basis and his services were terminated on 31.10.1979. On a dispute raised by the workman the same was referred to the Labour Court, Jalandhar for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act). The State of Punjab as the employer appeared before the Labour Court in response to a notice received from that Court and when the case was fixed for filing of the claim statements, the representative of the employer did not appear. The Labour Court proceeded ex parte against the employer and after recording the statement of the workman which was relied upon, it was held that the services of the workman were illegally terminated and he was ordered to be reinstated with back wages. The employer then moved an application for setting aside of the ex parte award. The Labour Court after recording the evidence of the parties found no ground to set aside that award and the application was accordingly dismissed on 19.10.1984. It is his order that has been primarily challenged in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) What was contended before the Labour Court was that the absence of the authorised representative of the management was due to inadvertence and was unintentional and to support this plea reliance was placed on the testimony of Shri Narender Sharma, S.D.C. who stated that he had gone to the court with the written statement on 9.9.1981 but was late as his scooter had gone out of order. His statement has not been believed by the Labour Court because in his cross-examination, he admitted that on 9.9.1981 he had not given in writing that he was late in the Court. The Labour Court also found that there was nothing on the record to show that he had at all gone to the Court on the said date. After rejecting the testimony of this witness, it was held that there was no ground to set aside the ex-parte award. The application was consequently dismissed.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned order. The Labour Court has given cogent reasons for rejecting the testimony of the sole witness produced by the management to show that its absence on the day when ex parte proceedings were ordered against it was unintentional. I find no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the Labour Court.