Parties in judicial proceedings should be provided sufficient opportunity to present their case, and cases involving substantive rights should be decided on merits, avoiding ex parte decisions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 3 and Shri Awadh Sharma, learned Advocate, holding brief of Shri Shivniket Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the award 19.10.2011, whereby the Labour Court, Saharanpur, has proceeded under Rule 12 (9) of the UP Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 and has directed reinstatement of the respondent No.3 as Seasonal Weight-man Clerk terming his termination as illegal. Further directions for payment of entire backwages and other financial benefits have also been issued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned award has not been passed on merits rather it has been passed on the ground that the petitioners did not cross-examine the witness, i.e., the workman; that the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners was not verified and since the affidavit filed by the workman remained unsworn, there is no reason to disbelieve its contents.

4. Learned counsel further submits that there were cane-sugar dues towards the petitioners, which is a sugar-mill and in the proceedings of recovery of such dues, the mill was under attachment with effect from 20.4.2011 and, thereafter, criminal prosecution of the officials of the mill was also launched in which even the Managing Director was sent to jail. He refers to the order-sheet of the adjudication case and argues that with effect from 13.7.2011 onwards, the absence on behalf of petitioners was recorded and after 4-5 dates, having heard the workman, the impugned award was passed on 19.10.2011.

5. As regards the non-verification of the affidavit, the submission is that mill had filed a written statement duly verified by its Law Officer, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. A rejoinder affidavit was also filed before the Labour Court, however, for some reason, it could not be verified, but according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this would not be relevant for the reason that the workman had replied the contents of such affidavit by filing a reply in the nature of replica against the written statement filed by the petitioners. He, therefore, submits that under the circumstances, where the pleadings were already on record and the case of the petitioners was strong on merits, the Labour Court should not have proceeded under Rule 12 (9) of the Rules, 1957, but should have considered at least the contents of the written statement, which was duly verified.

6. He also submits that the order impugned is even otherwise not on merits in the sense that even no finding has been recorded regarding the merits of the case of the workman and in 2-3 lines, it has been held that termination of his services was illegal. He, therefore, submits that the workman did not discharge the burden of proving his case.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman, on the other hand, has vehemently argued that the employer deliberately absented himself from the proceedings and the reasons assigned for such absence are contrary to the factual position. He also referred to paragraph-17 of the counter affidavit in which it has been stated that a ground had been taken by the petitioners that the mill was locked on 20.4.2011, yet the employer appeared before the Tribunal on 13.7.2011 and filed pleadings.

8. I have perused the order-sheet of the adjudication case in reference and insofar as date 13.7.2011 is concerned, absence of the employer was recorded not even on the said date, but also on subsequent dates.

9. While entertaining the present writ petition, this Court passed following interim order on 4.10.2016 :

"It is stated that written statement was filed on behalf of petitioners disputing the claim, but on account of subsequent attachment of unit itself, the employer could not depose in the matter. It is also stated that delay in filing of writ petition was occasioned on account of the fact