Allahabad High Court
Syndet (India) Private Limited vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 25 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(2)ESC1239
Author: Rakesh Tiwari
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari
JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed against the ex parte award dated 31.8.2000 which was published on the notice board on 15.11.2000.
3. An application for recalling the ex parte award was moved on 14.1.2001 which was rejected on the ground that the Labour Court become functus officio after 30 days of the publication of the award in terms of Section 6-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. It appears from the order rejecting the application for setting aside the ex parte award that the Labour Court has held that the summons sent by the Labour Court had been served on the petitioner on 8.5.2000. However, this fact has been denied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and it is submitted that the summons were never served on the petitioner.
5. The Labour Court has not given any finding when and on whom the summons were served. The Post Master has also not been examined. The question as to who has received the summons has to be decided by the Labour Court.
6. It is not clear from the impugned award that when and on whom the summons were served and there is also no evidence in this regard. The Labour Court without giving any finding as to when and on whom summons had been served and who had served them, proceeded with the case ex parte mechanically concluding that summonses had been served on the employer without verifying this fact first.
7. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award dated 31.8.2000 is quashed. As a consequence of quashing of the impugned award the recovery certificate issued in pursuance of the impugned ex parte award is also quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for decision afresh in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. The Labour Court is directed to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. If necessary, the proceedings may be held on day-to-day basis under Rule 12(4) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 in view of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 17602 of 1990 (Basant Lal v. U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation and Ors.) reported in (2003) 1 UPLBEC 154.