NIRBHAI SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seriously dispute their postal addresses in the memo of parties in the application filed under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the private respondent as described in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ petition.

(2.) Registered notices were sent by the court staff of the Labour Court to the three petitioners, who were respondents in the application, under one registered cover which is procedure contrary to Rule 18 of the Industrial Disputes (Punjab) Rules, 1958. When the combined registered letter was not received back served or otherwise, the Labour Court without making another attempt fell back on the presumption of service, and thereby, proceeded ex parte against the petitioners behind their back. As per Rule 18, any summon issued by the Labour Court may be served personally or by registered post and in the event of refusal by the party concerned to accept, the same shall be resent again under certificate of posting. Accordingly, a legal and valid presumption could not be drawn by the court a quo in the absence of adherence of procedural safeguards in the matter of service of summons in terms of rule 18 of the rules.

(3.) The present petition has been filed challenging the validity of the ex parte order and the final determination of a sum of Rs.94,830.00 along with interest accepting it to be money due. In any case, this is a mixed question of law and fact which can be determined by the Tribunal in the first instance and, in the circumstances, this Court need not express any final opinion on the factum of due and proper service.