Sangeeta Chandra, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Award dated 2.9.2006 passed by the respondent No. 1, Presiding Officer, Labour Court-1, Kanpur published on 20.11.2006. A further prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 19.3.2008 passed by the respondent No. 1 rejecting the Recall Application of the petitioner on the ground that it has been filed after thirty days and after thirty days no such application can be entertained as the Labour Court becomes functus officio. The Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. R.V. Palde and others, 2001 10 SCC 534, wherein a similar case the Labour Court has rejected the Recall Application as it was not moved within thirty days from the publication of Award in Government Gazette. The appellant challenged the refusal of the Labour Court to entertain the Recall Application against the ex-parte Award, the writ petition was rejected by the High Court also. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the High Court on the ground that in similar matter in Anil Sood v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others, 2001 89 FLR 229 (SC), it has already held that the Labour Court does not become functus officio after making an ex-parte Award and that an Award without notice would be a nullity. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court as well as the decision of the Labour Court rejecting the Recall Application. A direction was issued to the Labour Court to dispose of the matter on merits.
(2.) The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has pointed out page 55 of the impugned Award dated 2.9.2006 wherein the respondent No. 1 has mentioned in paragraph - 2 of the Award that summons had been duly served upon the Employer and even thereafter no appearance was put in nor any written statement was filed. He has also pointed out paragraph-10 on page 8 of the writ petition where the petitioner has submitted that some person on behalf of the petitioner had received the notice without making any signature and affixing any stamp on the said notice and on this presumption the Labour Court has found that service was sufficient upon the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 thereafter proceeded ex-parte.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 124 FLR 700 (SC), and a judgment rendered in M/s. Kanpur Plastic Pack Ltd. v. Teekam Singh and others, 2017 154 FLR 154 (SC), regarding the merits of the controversy.;