IMPORTANT POINT
The Labour Court's ex-parte award was set aside due to improper notice service and lack of evidence proving employment.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner (Management) has put to challenge the impugned ex-parte Award dated 31.12.2014 passed by the learned Labour Court, Guwahati in Reference Case No.2/2014 on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the learned Labour Court had issued the order dated 22.07.2014, directing that Reference Case No.2/2014 would proceed ex-parte against the petitioner, without any notice being received by the petitioner and without there being any returns being stated in the summons, endorsing the time and manner of service of the alleged notice alleged to be served on the petitioner, in terms of Order 5 Rule 18 CPC. Secondly, on the ground that there is no proof that the respondent is a workman employed by the petitioner, inasmuch as, the money receipt dated 04.08.1997, which has been exhibited as Ext-1, is not proof of payment of money to the respondent No.2 by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has also put to challenge the order dated 30.04.2016 passed by the learned Labour Court, Guwahati in Misc. Case No.1/2015, which was in relation to an application submitted by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte Award dated 31.12.2014 passed in Reference Case No.2/2014.

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the learned Labour Court had directed that Reference Case No.2/2014 should proceed ex-parte against the petitioner, vide order dated 22.07.2014, when there was no service report made by the Process Server in terms of Order 5 Rule 18 CPC. The petitioner’s counsel further submits that at the time of pendency of Misc. Case No.1/2015, the Process Server DW-2 Sri Nayanmoni Sarma in his cross-examination stated that he did not submit any report after serving the notice dated 09.06.2014 to the petitioner. As such, there was no basis for the learned trial Court to have decided that notice had been served upon the petitioner.

5. He also submits that the respondent No.2 had submitted his written statement (statement of claim) only on 08.08.2014, i.e., after the case was directed to be proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner. He submits that it is only after a statement of claim is submitted by the respondent No.2, who is the party raising the dispute, that the petitioner is to file a written statement against the statement of claim. However, the petitioner has been proceeded ex-parte even before a statement of claim has been submitted by the respondent No.2. He submits that the filing of a statement of claim and the subsequent filing of a written statement against the statement of claim, has to be done in terms of Rule 10B of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1957 Rules’).

6. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned Award passed by the learned Labour Court has come to a finding that the respondent No.2 was a workman engaged by the petitioner on the basis of Ext-1, which is a money receipt, which shows that the respondent No.2 had received Rs.1,37,684/- from the petitioner. However, Ext-1 is not a money receipt showing payment of money to the respondent No.2, but is actually a money receipt issued by the petitioner, for receipt of money from M/s HPC/CPM, Panchgram (Assam).

7. The petitioner’s counsel submits that there is no evidence to show that the respondent no.2 was a workman, engaged by the petitioner or that his service had been terminated by the petitioner.

8. The petitioner’s counsel accordingly prays that the impugned Award dated 31.12.2014 passed in Reference Case No.2/2014 and the order dated 30.04.2016 passed in Misc. Case No.1/2015 by the learned Labour Court, Guwahati, should be set aside.

9. Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that there is no requirement for a Process Server to give a service report that the notice issued by the learned Labour Court had been served upon the writ petitioner, prior to