Sunil Ambwani - (1.) -Heard Shri V. K. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Bushra Mariyam for Smt. Rajesh Devi-respondent No. 1.
(2.) SMT. Rajesh Devi-respondent No. 1 was employed by M/s. Vision 23 Garment Private Limited NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar as an Operator. Her services were terminated on 21.2.1995 giving rise to an industrial dispute, which was referred on 16.9.1998 to the Labour Court (2), U. P., Ghaziabad and was registered as Adjudication Case No. 514/1998. In the ex parte award dated 16.10.2003, the labour court found the service of summons on the employer to be sufficient and observed that inspite of several opportunities the employer did not file their written statement. Thereafter the labour court found that the respondent workman was appointed as an operator on 8.12.1993 on permanent basis and that her services were terminated by oral order on 21.2.1995. She had completed 240 days and was not paid salary and over time from 1.2.1995 to 20.3.1995. She was not given any notice pay, and retrenchment compensation at the time of termination of her services. The labour court relied upon the affidavit of the workman, which was not controverted and awarded while declaring the termination of her services to be improper and illegal and directed her reinstatement with full back wages. The employer has challenged the ex parte award on merit in Writ Petition No. 56064 of 2006. On 10.10.2006 the Court passed following orders and stayed the award : "Argument is that award besides being ex parte, in view of the details so placed on the record could not have been passed. In view of the aforesaid, it is provided as an interim measure that till the next date of listing operation of the impugned award dated 16.10.2003 shall remain stayed. Issue notice to respondent No. 1. Steps will be taken within ten days. Counter-affidavit may be filed by the next date. List this case in the month of December, 2006. Sd. S. K. Singh, J. 10.10.2006." The writ petition came up for hearing and that on 15.1.2007 the Court disposed of the writ petition with the directions that the petitioner will file a certified copy of the order within ten days. The Presiding Officer will decide recall/review application in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides within one month and that no adjournment will be given to the petitioner on any ground. The Court stayed the recovery for a pried of six weeks.
(3.) AFTER hearing both the parties, the labour court, by its order dated 23.2.2007, dismissed the application for recalling ex parte order giving rise to this writ petition. The labour court found that the summons sent by the labour court were served upon the employer but they did not appear. In order to enforce the award the officer of the labour department visited the office of the company on 19.5.2004 and informed them with the award. The summons were again issued in proceeding under Section 6H (1) on 30.1.2006 and thereafter by speed post on 15.2.2006 in response to which two directors of the employer appeared. The recall application, however, was filed with seven months delay for which no sufficient ground is available on record. The labour court found that the summons were served personally on the employer on 30.8.2002. The envelop bears the seal and signature of the officers of the employer. On the date fixed on 11.11.2002 no one appeared. Labour court granted time on several occasions but the employer did not choose to appear and file written statement.;