- (1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitionerestablishment challenging the order dated 05.06.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Labour Court-I, Gurgaon whereby, an application filed by the workman-respondent no. 2 for setting aside the order dated 22.11.2012 (Annexure P-3) has been allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 1000/- as costs and the case was being fixed for evidence of the workman.
(2.) The sole argument of counsel for the petitioner is that the Labour Court had no power to review once it had decided the reference on merits against the workman and, therefore, the impugned order dated 05.06.2013 is without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. However, this Court is not impressed with the said submission. A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the workman, in his claim petition dated 18.05.2010, had challenged his termination dated 02.05.2009, being violative of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act').
(3.) In the written statement dated 07.09.2010 filed by the petitioner-establishment, a plea taken was that a proper inquiry had been held by an inquiry officer and after the charges had been proved, the termination order had been passed. Issues were framed on 19.04.2011 but it seems that the workman failed to lead evidence despite availing several opportunities. Accordingly, vide order dated 22.11.2012 (Annexure P-3) due to the absence of the workman, the evidence was closed. Since there was no evidence of the workman, the management also closed its evidence without leading any evidence and accordingly, the reference was rejected and answered against the workman vide order dated 22.11.2012. The workman filed an application dated 17.12.2012 for setting aside the final award and for permission to adduce evidence, which was objected to on various grounds by the management in its reply submitted on 02.04.2013.;