State Of Chhattisgarh v. Phool Singh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPL No.82 of 2016

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) (The Petitioner No.1 was not a party before the Learned Labour Court but has been impleaded as Petitioner No.1 in the instant petition as the proper course is To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of The Concerned Department)

2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Bilaspur Forest Division, Marwahi, Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Incharge Nursery, Indira Udhyan Nursery, Post, Pendra, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Phool Singh S/o Suveshi Singh, R/o Village Jhabar, Post Kudkai Via Pendra, P.S. Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Judge, Labour Court, Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) (Under I.D. Act) ---- Respondents For Petitioners/State :

Shri S. P. Kale, Dy.AG For Respondent No.1 :

Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 28/06/2016 Heard on admission.

2.

This petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India has been preferred against award dated 15-02-2013 (Annexure P-1) as also against order dated 31-03-2015 for setting aside ex parte award dated 15-02-2013. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in an application for setting aside ex parte award, it was clearly stated that though notices were served, but the concerned authority had no notice or information regarding listing of this matter before the Labour Court, therefore, there was bonafide mistake, due to which, no

representation could be made and ex parte award was passed. It is also submitted that the learned Labour Court adopted very restricted approach while considering the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte award. He submits that by the impugned award, termination has been held to be illegal and employee has been reinstated in service, therefore, an opportunity to contest the matter on merits ought to be granted to the petitioner-employer. 4.

The application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is not on record. However, upon perusal of impugned award, it is revealed that summons of the case were already served on the petitioner. There is no other material placed before the Court to show why appearance could not be made before the Labour Court despite service of summons. The present case arises out of the impugned award passed in favour of a workman. Therefore, without merits of the case, no relief can be granted in this case. 5.

In the award, it has been recorded that in addition to oral evidence, number of documentary evidence were also produced to prove that the respondent-workman worked continuously for more than 240 days in one calendar year and in fact, the workman having worked so long, removal without following the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the termination of workman is held illegal. 6.

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, no case for interference is made out.

7.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Interim order granted by this Court on 17-03-2016 stands vacated.

SD/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ) Judge Tumane