Delhi District Court
This Order Shall Dispose Of An ... vs 8.2003 on 30 March, 2007
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA RANI : POLC - XIII :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
M-38/2006
BETWEEN
MANAGEMENT
M/S A.R.C. DETECTIVE PVT. LTD.
AND
WORKMAN
SH. RAMA NAND SINGH
ORDER
1. This order shall dispose of an application of the management U/o 9 Rule 7 and 13 CPC for setting aside award passed by my Ld. Predecessor on 4.8.2005 pleading therein following averments :
Applicant/ management received a letter dated 25.4.2006 on 4.5.2006 from the appropriate government to the effect that an award in this case dated 4.8.2005 was published on 25.4.2006 and the same would become enforceable w.e.f. 25.5.2006 U/s 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Copy of the letter is annexed as Annexure A. The applicant was surprised to receive the letter as it had not been served properly nor any vakalatnama was filed on its behalf. Record of the case file shows that one employee namely Marcos received the summons. The applicant did not have any information with regard to the present case. The workman has no merits in his case as he left the services on his own on 8.8.2003 after taking his full and final 1 dues. Applicant has prayed for an opportunity to contest the case of the workman on merits. Application is accompanied by an affidavit of Sh.
Vivek Gupta, Manager (Admn.) of the applicant.
2. Worker contested the application vide its reply. It is stated that the applicant was properly served with the court notice. It is denied that the workman had received his full and final payment. It is reiterated that he was removed from service without any payment. It is prayed that the application of the management for recalling ex.parte award be dismissed with heavy cost.
3. I have perused the material available on record. I have also heard Ld. AR for both sides.
4. Following orders of My Ld. Predecessor are relevant and are reproduced below :
23.10.2002 Present : Ms. Nazma Sultan She has filed appearance of workman. Management is also served. Statement of claim be filed on 13.2.2003.
POLC:IV/23.10.2002 13.2.2003 Present : Workman in person.
AR for management Claim not filed. The same be filed by 23.5.2004.
POLC:IV/13.2.2003 23.5.2003 Present : AR for management AR for workman For filing of claim to come upon 8.7.2003.
POLC:IV 2 1.8.2003 Present : AR for the parties.
Statement of claim filed by AR for workman. Put up for filing of W.S. to the claim on 20.10.2003.
POLC:IV/1.8.2003 16.3.2004 Present : AR for the parties.
For filing of W.S. to come up on 3.8.2004.
POLC:IV/16.3.2004 3.8.2004 Present : None.
Present : AR for workman.
Present : As before.
None for the management despite several calls since morning. It is 2.07 p.m. Hence, management is proceeded against ex.parte. For ex.parte workman evidence to come upon 26.8.2004.
POLC-IV/3.8.2004.
On 3.8.2004 management was proceeded against ex.parte by My Ld. Predecessor. AR for management contended that the management was not served at all and it had no knowledge of the pendency of the present reference and no vakalatnama was filed in this case on behalf of the management.
5. The notice sent to the management for 23.10.2002 is on record which shows that the notice was received by one Marcos, Accounts officer of the management. Management itself has also not denied that one employee Mr. Marcos received the summons. (para 3 page 2 of the application). Management has not denied that Marcos was not working with it as Accounts officer on 23.10.2002. Management has not disputed that he received summons. Management has not disputed his signatures 3 on the summons. Management has merely pleaded that it was not aware of the present csae. Now who is to be blamed for it. It is clear from the record that Mr. Marcos the accounts officer received the summons on behalf of the management. The notice is signed by Mr. Marcos and he has written, "received for A.R.C. Detective Pvt. Ltd". It is not the case of the management that Mr. Marcos was not authorised to receive the summons nor such plea would be of any help to it as was observed by our own Hon'ble High Court in Nai Dunia Urdu Weekly Newspaper V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.X and others 2007 LLR 274. In this case the management alleged that no notice through registered cover was sent by the Labour Court and the service was manipulated by the workman in connivance with the process server. Management denied service of the notice. It was also pleaded that workman managed to get its stamp affixed on the notice. Hon'ble High Court disbelieved the management and held as follows :
"Process server who goes to serve the summons informs the person available on the spot about the summons of the court. If the employee available considers that the summons have to be accepted by some other official, he has to inform the same to that official and if the employee himself is competent to receive the summons, he receives the summons for the management. Petitioner has alleged connivance but has not disclosed who from its office could have connived and provided stamp of petitioner. There are no reasons to disbelieve 4 the process server and to believe the management about the delivery of the summons. The court has to presume that all officials acts have have been done in the proper manner. This presumption can be rebutted only by strong evidence. A mere denial of the signatures cannot rebut the presumption of proper service. There is no reason why process server would forge signatures of anyone. There is no reason to believe that the respondent had any hand in the service of the summons. Therefore, I find no merits in the contentions that the petitioner was not properly served, more so, when the petitioner admits that all earlier notices etc. were received by the petitioner.
...
I consider that the Tribunal had no alternative but to proceed ex.parte and give award on the basis of evidence adduced by the workman. A party who chooses not to appear before the Tribunal despite service has to suffer the consequences."
6. The present case is on much stronger footing than the aforesaid cited case. Here management has not disputed that Mr. Marcos was its employee. It has not disputed even his signatures showing acknowledgment of receipt of notice. Mr. Marcos himself wrote that he received the notice on behalf of "A.R.C. Detective Pvt. Ltd". Once 5 notice is duly received by its accounts officer, the management cannot feign ignorance about the present reference and plead that it was not aware of it. After due service it has to bear the consequences of its non- appearance. It does not lie in the mouth of the applicant to allege that it did not file any vakalatnama. The court was presided over by two different presiding officers between 23.10.2002 to 3.8.2004. The orders produced above from 23.10.2002 to 13.2.2003 were passed by one Presiding officer and the subsequent orders were passed by another presiding officer. Both these presiding officers have marked the presence of AR for the management. Simply because the vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant is not on record, the same cannot falsify the orders of two Ld. Presidings Officers showing the presence of management on 13.2.2003, 23.5.2003 and 1.8.2003.
7. In view of aforesaid, I do not find any justification in recalling ex.parte award passed by my Ld. Predecessor on 4.8.2005. Application is accordingly dismissed. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court PRESIDING OFFICER
on 30.03.2007 LABOUR COURT NO. XIII
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI.
6