(1.) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the ex-parte award dated 21.04.2004 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the Labour Court-II, Faridabad, as well as order dated 27.03.2008 (Annexure-P-5), filed by the petitioner-society for setting aside the ex-parte award.
(2.) It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner-society that Shri Dinesh Kumar, who had put in appearance on behalf of petitioner-society before the Labour Court, was not an authorised representative. No authority letter was placed on record by him which would justify his appearance before the Labour Court. According to the records of the Labour Court, Dinesh Kumar, had put in appearance on 24.09.2003 when the case was adjourned to 29.01.2004. On the said date, none had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner-society, leading to the petitioner-society being proceeded against ex-parte, vide award dated 21.04.2004. Ultimately, the proceedings culminated into passing of the award dated 21.04.2004 being ex-parte.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner-society contends that the services of the respondent-workman were terminated for the reason that resolution dated 16.01.1998 was passed by the petitioner-society, vide which the appointment of respondent-workman stood annulled by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon, vide order dated 22.10.2002. He on this basis contends that there were justifiable reasons for terminating the services of the respondent-workman and if given a chance, the petitioner-society would be able to justify its stand with regard to the termination of the respondent-workman. He on this basis submits that non appearance by the petitioner-society before the Labour Court, was neither intentional nor deliberate but since none had put in appearance, therefore, the award has come into being. He further prays that it would be in the interest of justice, if an opportunity be given to the petitioner-society to defend itself before the Labour Court.