Point of Law: Workmen - Summons - Summons is clearly served on Management and mere plea of construction/renovation cannot be accepted unequivocally - Moreover, Labour Court also granted Management sufficient opportunity in application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for deposit of awarded amount.

JUDGMENT :

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Management (hereinafter, ‘Management’) challenging the impugned award dated 17th November, 2018 by which the Respondent-Workman (hereinafter ‘Workman’) has been reinstated with full back wages along with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. The operative portion of the award reads as under:

“8. As already discussed above, the management though proceeded ex-parte has also not come forward to cross examine the claimant w.r.t. his deposition and accordingly, the said deposition remained uncontroverted and unrebutted and accepted as such on its face value.

9. Hence, the court has come to the conclusion that the services of the claimant were terminated without following the procedure of law.

10. In these circumstances, the claimant is held entitled to the relief of reinstatement with full backwages along with continuity of services and all other consequential benefits.”

3. The Workman was appointed as a Data Entry Operator vide appointment letter dated 24th September, 2012 on a monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/-. It is the case of the Management that the Workman was promoted on 4th May, 2016 with a salary of Rs. 18,000/- p.m. w.e.f. 1st April, 2016. However, certain disputes arose between the parties, leading to a reference dated 2nd August, 2017. The question which was framed in the reference was as under:

“Whether Sh. Ram Mohan Nag S/o Sh. Manglu Nag age-36 years (Mobile No. 9015589864) is absconding from the duty; and if not, his services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

4. The said reference was sent to the Labour Court. In the Labour Court, notice was issued to the Management on 5th February, 2018 and on the next date, being 24th April, 2018, the matter was again adjourned to 2nd August, 2018. However, on both these dates, the Management did not enter appearance. The evidence of the Workman was then taken on record and the impugned award dated 17th November, 2018 was passed. The workman was not cross examined. An application was moved by the Management under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeing the setting aside of the impugned award. In the said application, it was directed on 8th March, 2019 that the entire awarded amount be deposited, after which notice would be issued in the matter. However, the Management failed to deposit the same and finally, due to non-compliance of the order of deposit, the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was dismissed.

5. The present writ petition has, thereafter, been filed before this Court wherein notice was issued on 17th July, 2019. Vide order dated 24th October, 2019, the Court directed deposit of 50% of the awarded amount with the ld. Registrar General of this Court. The said amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- stands deposited with the ld. Registrar General.

6. Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, ld. counsel appearing for the Management submits that the Management did not appear initially when notice was issued as there was construction/renovation going on in the offices of the Management. It was only on 10th December, 2018 that the summons was traced and by then, the impugned award had been passed. He further submits that the Workman is a person who has made complaints against the Management with several authorities and he has been harassing the Management in some way or the other.

7. It is submitted that the Workman himself has a company which he has incorporated, called M/s Niram Infracom Developers Pvt. Ltd. The date of incorporation of the said company is May, 2016 i.e. the time when the Workman was working with the Management. Mr. Kalra, ld. Counsel submits that the Workman is duly occupied and employed and hence, the Management ought to be given an opportunity to lead its defence as it has a very good case on merits. He, further, submi