The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice and fair hearing in ex-parte proceedings, ruling that an ex-parte award is invalid without ensuring all parties are duly notified.

ORAL ORDER

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner-company under Articles 226 & 227of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :-

(A) Your Lordship be pleased to admit this petition;

(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed below Exhibit-15 in Workman Compensation Misc. Application No. 1 of 2018 and allowing the application of the present petitioner by, quashing and setting aside the Ex- parte award dated 09.03.2018 passed in Workman Compensation Fatal Application No. 1 of 2014, passed by the Labor Court, Navsari, and directing the Trial court to hear and decide a fresh on merits by giving opportunity of hearing the present petitioner.

(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned Ex-parte award dated 09.03.2018 passed by Labor Court, Navsari in Workmen Compensation Fatal Application No. 1 of 2014.

(D) Be pleased to pass any other and further relief as may be deemed just, fit and proper.”

2. The brief facts of the present case are as under :-

2.1 Deceased employee - Mr. Jitendra Shivaji Rai of Best Security met with an accident due to which he succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of deceased filed WC reference before the Labour Court, Navsari which was numbered as Workman Compensation (F) 1 of 2014. The Labour Court had issued notices to the opponent parties which was not served upon the present petitioner.

2.2 Upon certificate issued by the Postal Department, without verifying the veracity of the certificate, the Labour Court proceed to pass an ex-parte award. Thereafter, no notice was served upon the present petitioner at any point of time. On 09.03.2018, the Labour Court, Navsari passed ex-parte award in favour of the applicants- respondents herein.

2.3 The petitioner herein came to know about passing of the ex-parte award and immediately the petitioner applied for the copies of the documents from the record of the Court. The petitioner filed an application being WC MA No. 1 of 2018 seeking recall of ex parte award. On 27.07.2018 respondent herein filed their reply to restoration application filed by the present petitioner. On 30.08.2019, the Labour Court dismissed the restoration application filed by the present petitioner. Hence the present petition.

3. Learned advocate Mr. G.T. Dayani for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workman Compensation Court, Navsari is erroneous, illegal and unsustainable both on facts and law. It is also submitted that the impugned order rejecting the application under Order-9, Rule-13 of code of Civil Procedure for restoration of original proceedings is passed without appreciating and considering the fact that the entire proceedings being Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Case No. 1 of 2014 have been decided ex-parte and without the knowledge of the petitioner.

3.1 It is also submitted that the learned Commissioner has committed serious error in not appreciating the fact that there is no evidence of service of notice either by the Court or by the respondent No. 1 because admittedly no acknowledgement duly signed by any authorized person was produced before the Trial Court and the learned Trial Judge has heavily relied on the certificate issued by the Postal Department, wherein also it is not reflected that the present petitioner was served with the process of the court at any point of time.

3.2 It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that there was no evidence brought on the record by the original claimant that initial notice or any further notice was served upon the petitioner at any stage of the proceedings and therefore, the impugned ex-parte award ought not to have been passed by the learned Trial Judge. It is further submitted that the trial Court has not considered the fact that if the petitioner