Surya Kant, J. - (1.) The petitioner-management is aggrieved by an ex-parte Award dated 5.10.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-III, Faridabad answering the reference in favour of the respondent-workman and directing his reinstatement in service with 50% back wages. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 3.3.2011 (Annexure P-5) whereby its application to set-aside the ex-parte Award dated 5.10.2010 has been dismissed by the Labour Court.
(2.) While examining the reference as to whether services of the workman were illegally terminated, the Labour Court, on consideration of the documentary as well as the oral evidence led by the workman, came to the conclusion that he was in regular employment of the petitioner management and governed under the EPF and ESI Schemes. His services were terminated without paying compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947, though he served the petitioner-management as a driver w.e.f. 1.4.1999 till 28.3.2009. Since the evidence led by the workman went un-rebutted, the Labour Court directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages.
(3.) The petitioner-management thereafter moved an application on 7.1.2011 to set-aside the ex-parte award solely on the plea that no notice was served upon it. The said plea has been turned down by the Labour Court holding as follows: ".......4. A perusal of record reveals that the notices of the reference No.R/233/2009 titled as Anup Kumar v. Manager, Jay EMM Gases Pvt. Limited had been sent to the workman as well as the management, i.e., the present applicant. Firstly, notice was issued through ordinary post for 3.5.2010. However, as the said notice had not been received back, therefore, fresh notice was ordered to be issued on 7.10.2010 through registered post. The said notice had been issued on 5.5.2010. The postal receipt had been placed on record. The said notice had also not been received by any form. As notice was issued to the present applicant through registered post and as period of more than 30 days had expired, therefore a presumption under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code had been drawn and it was presumed that the present applicant had received notice of reference. None had appeared on behalf of the present respondent and it had been proceeded against ex-parte. Thereafter, ex-parte evidence was recorded and award was passed in favour of workman on 5.10.2010. This award had been published by the office of Deputy Labour Commissioner on 26.10.2010. The present application had been filed on 7.1.2011 i.e., much beyond the period of 30 days after the date of publication of this award.......";