J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL)

1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the judgments and orders dated 04th February, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions being W.P.(C) 1282/2020, 1283/2020, 1285/2020, 1286/2020, 1287/2020 and 1289/2020 as well as awards dated 3rd September, 2019 passed in ID Nos. 1542/2017, 1543/2017, 1544/2017, 1545/2017, 1546/2017 and 1547/2017.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that even if the defence of the management had been struck off, then also management was entitled to cross-examine the witnesses and to address argument on the basis of the case set up by the workmen. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Modula India Vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo, (1988) 4 SCC 619 and M/s Paradise Industrial Corpn v. M/s Kiln Plastic Products, (1976) 1 SCC 91 wherein it has been held that even when a defence is struck off, the management/defendant is entitled to appear, cross-examine the workmen/plaintiffs’ witnesses and submit that even on the basis of the evidence on behalf of the workman, the award cannot be passed.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant also states that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that there had been a violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the Appellant-Company was not adequately represented by its counsel on record before the District & Sessions Judge, POLC-V, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, Delhi on the date the impugned awards were passed.

4. A perusal of the paperbook reveals that on 9th May, 2017, the Deputy Labour Commissioner had framed the following terms of reference and had referred the disputes to the Labour Court for adjudication:-

“SCHEDULE TERMSOFREFERENCE “Whether services of workmen S/Sh.Dinesh &5 Others as shown in Annexure “A” have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to what reliefs are they entitled and what directions arenecessaryinthisrespect?”

(BanbariLal)

Dy.LabourCommissioner No.F-24(370)/Lab./SD/2017/9409 Dated:9/5/17”

5. Thereafter admittedly, the Appellant-Company was served with copies of statements of claims and it was given an opportunity to file its written statements. As the written statements were not filed, the Additional District & Sessions Judge, POLC-V vide order dated 8th July, 2019 extended the time for filing the written statements subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- in each case. The order dated 8th July, 2019 is reproduced herienbelow: -

“IDNo.1542-17to1547-17

08.07.2019 Present:- ARsfortheparties.

WS stand not filed in terms of order dated 28.03.2019 and againadjournmentsoughttofile the same withoutassigningany reasonable cause.

Accordingly, a cost of Rs.10,000/- in each case stand imposeduponthemanagement.

Subject to payment of cost in each case, last and final opportunity is provided to the management to file the WS with advance copy to the oppositeparty.

Putupforpaymentofcost/filingofWSnowon27.08.2019.

(VinaySinghal)

Addl.District&SessionsJudge, POLC-V,RouseAvenueCourtComplex

08.07.2019”

6. However, as despite imposition of costs, the written statements were not filed, the Additional District & Sessions Judge, POLC-V struck off the defence of the management vide order dated 27th August, 2019. The matters were thereafter fixed for evidence of the workmen on 3rd September, 2019.

The order dated 27th August, 2019 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“IDNo.1542-17to1542-17

27.08.2019 Present: ARsfortheparties.

The matter is fixed today for the purpose of filingWS subject topaymentofcostasimposedvideorderdated08.07.2019.

However, again adjournment sought to file the WS as well as for payment of cost on the ground that management was not aware about the impositionofcostaspertheorderdated08.07.2019.

During the course of arguments, it is also submitted on behalf of the management that on the last date of hearingwhen costwas imposed uponthe management, its associate appeared and he did no