Sabina, J. - (1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the ex -parte award dated 17.2.2010 (Annexure P -5). Learned State counsel has submitted that petitioner had not received the summons and due to this reason, none could put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner before the Labour Court. The absence of the petitioner before the Labour Court was not intentional. Learned State counsel has further submitted that petitioner be granted opportunity to enable it to appear before the Labour Court and put up its defence.
(2.) None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 despite service.
(3.) Respondent No. 1 raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice challenging his termination. The dispute was referred to Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court -III, Faridabad by the appropriate government for adjudication. Petitioner was proceeded ex -parte vide order dated 20.11.2008 and thereafter ex -pate award was passed in favour of respondent No. 1 on 17.2.2010 (Annexure P -5). The case of the petitioner is that it could not appear before the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court as it had not received the summons.;