- (1.) Since in all these six revision petitions, matter materially and substantially emerging for adjudication is the same and arguments have also been advanced by Counsel for the parties in all these petitions collectively, hence these are being disposed of by this common order. Some industrial disputes raised by some of the workmen of the petitioner-company were pending adjudication before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak but presence of the employer pharmaceuticals company, now the petitioner, was not being procured and had become difficult. It was with a great difficulty that service could be effected on the management for 27.3.2009 but on the said date, none appeared for them, resulting in ex-parte proceedings having been taken against them. For convenience and clarity, facts are being taken from CR No.3479 of 2013.
(2.) During the pendency of the proceedings, an application (Annexure P-16) was moved by the management for setting aside the exparte order of 27.3.2009 which was contested tooth and nail by the workman. After hearing representatives of both the parties, the impugned order (Annexure P-17) dismissing the application of the management was made.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner-management has urged that service of notice had been shown to have been effected on some Navdeen, Clerk who in fact had never been their employee. Nirmal Bhatia, one of the Directors of the Management who had made appearance pursuant to issuance of warrants had categorically took a stand that Navdeen, Clerk was neither known to him nor any such person had ever been in employment with them. Counsel for the respondent-workman, on the other hand, has urged that one demand notice was served on the management by the workman, and thus the management was well aware of the industrial disputes raised by all the workmen. The question at this stage is as to whether service on the management was validly effected or not ;