The court emphasized that service of summons must be on authorized representatives of corporations, and that labor courts should properly assess merits, not issue mechanical orders.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

CM APPL.48838/2022 & CM APPL.48857/2022 (exemption)

Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 15694/2022 & CM APPL.48837/2022 (stay)

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 17.07.2018, 27.10.2018 and 13.10.2022. The petitioner was proceeded ex- parte vide order dated 17.07.2018 by the learned POLC-V, Dwarka Courts, Delhi. Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 27.10.2018, the award was passed by the learned Labour Court. Thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 27.10.2018. The said application was dismissed by the learned POLC-V vide order dated 13.10.2022. The petitioner has challenged these orders on the ground that the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned Award dated 27.10.2018 without giving any reasons. Even the award is silent about any discussion on the alleged termination of the workman.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that admittedly, summon was received by one Sh. Himanshu, who was the clerk in the company of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sh. Himanshu was not an authorized representative of the Company and therefore, it cannot be taken as a proper service. Reliance has been placed upon Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. vs. M/s. Abdul Hussain, AIR 1980 SC 1163.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Order XXIX of CPC lays down the procedure for service of summons in case of the Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case of service of the summons, it has to be served on the Secretary or any Director or other Principal Officer of the Corporation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. (supra) also the summons were allegedly served on one of the employees of the Company, who was merely an Office Assistant in the Sales Department of the Company. In that case also the said employee did not bring the fact of the receipt of the summons by him to the knowledge of any responsible officer of the Company. It has been submitted that the High Court took the view that since the said person was an employee of the Company sitting in its registered office in Calcutta, the summons will be deemed to have been duly served on the Company within the meaning of first part of clause (b) of Order 29, Rule 2 of the Code.

5. However, the Supreme Court did not agree with the view of the High Court and inter alia held as under:

"8. Sending summons to a corporation by post addressed to it at its registered office may be a good mode of service either by itself, or preferably, by way of an additional mode of service. But leaving the summons at the registered office of the corporation if it is literally interpreted to say that the summons can be left anywhere uncared for in the registered office of the company, then it will lead to anomalous and absurd results. It has to be read in the background of the provision contained in Order 5 Rule 17 of the Code. In other words, if the serving peon or bailiff is not able to serve the summons on the Secretary or any Director or any other Principal Officer of the Corporation because either he refuses to sign the summons or is not to be found by the serving person even after due diligence then he can leave the summons at the registered office of the company and make a report to that effect. In the instant