O R D E R

The present writ petitions were connected with W.P.

No.49970/2018, this Court heard all the writ petitions together, however, since in W.P. No.49970/2018 preferred by Trilogy E- Business Software India Private Limited, the relationship of employer and employee was in dispute, hence, a separate order has been passed in regard to the said writ petition, in the instant writ petitions as the issue involved are interlinked, they are taken up together for disposal.

2. W.P. No.20306/2022 is preferred by M/s. Versata Enterprises Inc. and M/s. Ignite Enterprises Software Solutions Inc. a company incorporated under the Laws of USA assailing the impugned order dated 18.08.2018 with the following prayers:

“(a) Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the impugned award dated 18.08.2018 at Annexure – A passed by the Hon’ble Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru in ID No.20/2017.

(b) Grant any other reliefs as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity.”

3. W.P. No.42874/2019 is preferred by the workman insofar as denial of backwages by the Labour Court.

4. Heard Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-management and Sri V.S. Naik, learned counsel for the respondent-workman.

5. The question that falls for consideration before this Court is:

“Whether proper procedure is followed by the Labour Court in issuing the summons / notice to a person residing / company in a foreign country, which is a party to the Hague Convention?”

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the various contentions raised in the writ petition would mainly urge that the petitioners being entities based in United States of America is not served in accordance with Hague Convention or by any postal channels or in a manner consistent with the requirements of law and thus, the order placing the petitioners ex parte vide order dated 05.08.2017 was not justified. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners were unable to participate in the proceedings due to the non-service of notice as per the procedure contemplated in Hague Convention and the impugned order passed by the Labour Court on the said count alone needs to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman would justify the order to the extent of reinstatement and other benefits and would contend that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is on consideration of the entire material on record placed by respondent No.1, however, would contend that having reinstated the workman, he was entitled for backwages. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the grievance of the petitioners that they were not served with the notice is unsustainable for the reason that the independent contractor services agreement envisages that for a notice, it must be delivered in writing including the electronic communication and thus, the issuance of notice by e-mail to the petitioners by the Labour Court was justified and the petitioners cannot now contend that there was no valid service.

8. Without adverting to the merits and demerits of the case, as stated supra, this Court has to look into whether there was proper service of notice on the petitioners. It is undisputed that the petitioners are entities incorporated and operating in the United States of America, who had engaged the freelance services of respondent No.1 for a project outside India, perusal of the order sheet indicates that the Labour Court issued summons through e-mail to the petitioners and through RPAD to respondent No.2 (M/s. Irilogy E-Business) vide Order dated 29.05.2017. The Labour Court on 05.08.2017, held as under:

“Second Party Nos.2 and 3 absent Notice to E-mail sent s/p No.2 and 3 are placed ex-

parte”

9. The Labour Court did not observe that the summons were properly addressed and duly sent, but passed an order as stated supra. The Hague Convention applies to the present p