IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA th ON THE 4 OF DECEMBER, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 4283 of 2024 LINAMAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus RAHUL SHEJWAL Appearance:

Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Paresh Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Ayush Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.

ORDER The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 14.10.2023 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court Dewas in ID Ref No.15/2022 by ex-partie award. The petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent in service with back wages. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the ex-partie awarded. By order dated 30.07.2024, the said application has also been dismissed.

Draped in brevity, the fact are the Petitioner bearing company identification No. U29242PN2013FTC148587 and registered office address at Gat No. 230/4 232 to 243/245/246/247 Building No A Khed, Bhamboli, Pune, Maharashtra, India, 410501 is a private limited company registered under the laws of India. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH manufacturing automotive parts and is a global supplier of automotive parts and components and has twoplantsin India, one of which is located in Pune, Maharashtra and the other in Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. The Petitioner in the present petition is represented through its authorized representative, Mr.

Amardeep Verma.

The Respondent initially was an employee of the Petitioner at its Pune plant and was later transferred to its Dewas plant. After the transfer, the Respondent initially reported to work for about a week but remained unauthorizedly absent from work at Dewas plant for approximately 6 months. The Petitioner initiated disciplinary enquiry proceedings into charges levelled against the Respondent (including misconduct arising from unauthorized absence from work). Upon conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry in October, 2021,the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report in which he found the Respondent guilty of misconduct arising from unauthorized absence from work at Dewas unit. Thereafter, the Respondent was terminated in accordance with applicable law by following due process prescribed by law. However, the respondent filed an application dated December 6, 2021 before the Labour Officer, Dewas alleging termination of his employment to be illegal and sudden and requested for setting aside of the termination and his reinstatement. Pursuant to this application, the Petitioner received a notice from the Labour Officer, Dewas dated December 27, 2021 asking the Petitioner to participate in the first conciliation meeting on January 11, 2022. The Petitioner submitted a response to the abovementioned letter, on January 7, 2022, informing the Labour Officer, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH Dewas that the Respondent was terminated in accordance with law by following the due process prescribed by law and also requested the Labour Officer, Dewas to dismiss the application filed by the Respondent and requested for closure of the conciliation proceedings without any further steps. Further, the representative of Petitioner also participated in the first conciliation meeting held on January 11, 2022 before Labour Officer, Dewas. Subsequently, the Petitioner received notices dated: (i) February 2, 2022; and (ii) February 25, 2022 asking the Petitioner to attend the conciliation proceedings. The Petitioner submitted its response to abovementioned notices to the Labour Officer, Dewas in which the Petitioner reiterated its request for dismissal of the Respondent's application and closure of the conciliation proceedings.

The Labour Officer acting as the conciliation officer failed to bring about a settlement between the Petitioner and the Respondent and submitted a failure report to the State Government of Madhya Pr