1. By way of this petition, challenge is made to the award passed by Labour Court, Kalol (North Gujarat) dated 29.1.2007 in Reference (LCK) No.37/1997. It is contended by learned advocate for the petitioner that no process was served on the petitioner and according to him, order is passed ex-parte.
2. From the reading of the order impugned, it transpires that the process sent through bailiff of the Court was refused on behalf of the employer and the said refusal was by one person, named Maheshbhai. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that owner of the petitioner company is Viresh G. Gandhi and not Maheshbhai and therefore, refusal is not by the owner of the company. It is also borne out from the record that the process was sent by Registered Post A.D. also and it was addressed to the Manager, New Kalindi Metal Works at the address which is of the company. The said post has returned as 'REFUSED' and endorsement is made to that effect by the postal authority. Learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the document in that regard.
3. Thus, to accept the contention of the learned advocate that the order was ex-parte, it has to be accepted that the fact about process having been sent through bailiff as well as post, both, as reflected in the order, is false. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention on the face of the document on record.
4. It is normal practice that whenever process of Labour Court is sought to be served on any industrial unit, it is served in the office of the unit and it does not go to the owner of the company straightway. Without going into that controversy, independently also, it can be seen that the process was sent by Registered Post A.D. and that has also returned as 'REFUSED'. Under these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner company. Award is of the year 2007. Thus, the matter has to be looked from the aspect of delay as well.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner came to know about this order only when the recovery certificate was sought to be executed against them. It is pertinent to note that issuance of recovery certificate is pursuant to the petition, being Special Civil Application No.18485 of 2011, which is pending. Recovery certificate is stated to have been issued pursuant to the assurance given by the competent authority to this Court on 11.5.2012, the order, which was challenged by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.816 of 2012, which is not pressed by the petitioner, today.
6. Considering the totality of the facts, at this stage, interference in the order passed by the Labour Court would nullify the entire subsequent process which has taken place, that too at the hands of a person, who had refused to accept the process of Labour Court.
7. Considering the totality of the facts, no interference is called for in the order passed by the Labour Court.
8. Hence, petition is dismissed.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) omkar Top