- (1.) The Government of Haryana had made a reference on 18.6.2002, to the following effect: "Whether the termination of the service of Shri Ram Mishra is justified to not If not, to what relief he is entitled to -
(2.) The reference was declined by the Labour Court on 28.2.2003 (Annexure P-6). The award was ex-parte. An application (Annexure P-7) was filed for setting aside the ex-parte award. Vide Annexure P-8,the Presiding Officer, Labour Court on 4.6.2003 had set aside the ex-parte award and listed the case for evidence of the workman. This time, vide Annexure P-10, the ex-parte award was passed against the Management and vide Annexure P-11, the workman was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. Thereafter, the State of Haryana through Labour Inspector lodged a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad under Section 29/31 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has been averred in the writ petition that petitioner No.1-Management had closed on 12.9.2001 and they had also surrendered the Excise Registration Certificate. Notice regarding closure was also pasted on the main entrance gate of the establishment. It has been further averred that the firm had closed down because of slump in the market and loss in the business. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the sole proprietorship concern belonged to his father and the petitioner at that time was minor. This Court while issuing notice of motion had recorded the following contention of the counsel for the petitioners on 16.11.2006: "Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner had not been duly served upon the application presented before the Labour Court for recalling the order vide which the ex-parte award had been made by dismissing the reference against the workman. He contends that as per Rule 18 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, the notice was required to be served personally and through registered covered, but the process was not adhered to by the Labour Court. In fact the service was shown to be effected on one foreman who is not the employee of the petitioner. This service would not be acceptable and would be in accordance with law."
(3.) On the last date of hearing, we are of the prima facie opinion that the ex-parte award is liable to be set aside. Then the counsel for the parties stated that there are chances of compromise between the parties. We had recorded in our order dated 9.4.2008 as follows: "Learned counsel for the parties state that there are chances of compromise between the parties. Adjourned to 22.5.2008.";