- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Kota, assailing ex-parte award dated 12.10.1992 and order dated 19.07.1995 rejecting application to set-aside ex-parte award, passed by the Labour Court, Kota. Reference of an industrial dispute was made to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government by Notification dated 02.11.1989 to the effect whether action of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Kota in removing Shri Mangilal, Smt. Pushpa and Smt. Shanti from service, was legal and justified and, if not, what relief they are entitled to.
(2.) Learned Labour Court answered the reference in the term that their removal from services was not legally valid and they are all entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity of service. Dr. Mahendra Singh Kachhawa, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that the Labour Court erred in law in holding that termination of the respondent workmen was made in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act'). In fact, they were never retrenched but had abandoned the services. This matter would therefore not fall within the purview of retrenchment. The learned counsel submitted that notice of proceedings before the learned Labour Court was served upon Chowkidar deployed in the office of Deputy Conservator of Forest. The said Chowkidar never put up the notice before the Deputy Conservator of Forest nor otherwise brought the same to his knowledge. In these circumstances, the matter went unattended on behalf of the management. The learned Labour Court on 07.11.1990 ordered ex-parte proceedings against the management and passed ex-parte award on 12.10.1992. Information of that award came to the notice of the Deputy Conservator of Forest for the first time from letter of the Deputy Secretary, Labour Department, Government of Rajasthan, dated 18.10.1993, which was received in his office on 19.10.1993. Officials of the petitioner made enquiry regarding award of the Labour Court and thereafter applied for certified copy of the award, which was received on 01.11.1993 and on the very second day i.e. 02.11.1993, an application was made for setting aside the expate award and allowing the petitioner herein, i.e. the Deputy Conservator of Forest to participate in the proceedings and adduce evidence on its behalf. Learned counsel submitted that even after publication of the award, the learned Labour Court could have entertained application for setting aside the award. The application, however, has been rejected by a mechanical order passed on 19.04.1995; although, on the merits, holding that the plea of the management that service of notice was not proper, cannot be accepted. It is submitted that during pendency of present writ petition, workman Mangilal expired on 11.03.2001, who has been substituted by his legal representatives. Since no interim order was passed by this court, the respondent workman Mangilal joined the duties on 06.03.1997; another workman Smt. Shanti joined her duties on 06.03.1997 and since then she is working; but Smt. Pushpa Devi has never turned up to attend the office. The learned counsel submitted that the matter ought to be remanded because service of notice was not affected on Deputy Conservator of Forest but notice was actually served on a Chowkidar of his office, which cannot be treated as sufficient service. It is therefore prayed that the award may be set aside and the matter may be remanded.
(3.) On the other hand, Shri Bhanwar Bagri, learned counsel for workmen/respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that Chowkidar in the office of Deputy Conservator of Forest was authorized to accept notice and when he accepted notice, it cannot be said that service was not complete. The learned Labour Court sent a notice on 17.03.1990, service of which was affected on Shri Chandalal, Chowkidar on 09.04.1990 wherein 11.04.1990 was the date fixed for appearance. When no one appeared on that date, a fresh notice was issued giving 21.08.1990 as the next date. That notice was also served on Shri Chandalal, Chowkidar in the office of management on 09.08.1990; even then no one turned up. In those circumstances, learned Labour Court was fully justified in proceeding ex-parte against the management and passing ex-parte award. The learned counsel submitted that after the award was published, application for setting aside ex-parte award was not maintainable. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not been able to show compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act. Award of the learned Labour Court holding violation of that provision cannot be faulted.;