Ms App (India) Paper Private Limited Vs Ashok Kumar Panwar and Another

The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned award dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said award is an ex parte award and the petitioner was never served so as to allow him to participate in the proceedings before the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the recording of the findings in the award by the Labour Court that a counsel had appeared

¶16

on behalf of the petitioner before the Labour Court, but thereafter, he

¶17

RIMPAL RANI 2025.04.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CM-16330-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-2190-2022 (O&M) -2-

¶19

remained absent, is incorrect as the petitioner was never served with the summons for him to afford an opportunity to authorize anyone to appear on behalf of them therefore, the recording of the findings by labour Court that some representatives appeared on behalf of petitioner is incorrect.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation further submits that the exparte award dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) be set-aside and the matter be remanded back to the labour Court for fresh adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is ready to compensate the respondent-workmen for the delay on his part.

¶21

Upon notice of motion, learned counsel for the respondentworkman has appeared and submits that once the labour Court has came to the conclusion that the petitioner was served properly and thereafter an exparte award has been passed, therefore, the impugned exparte award may kindly be upheld.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

¶23

The petitioner is disputing service upon petitioner and there is also a dispute that whether any lawyer was engaged to defend petitioner before the labour Court or not. It is in interest of natural justice, further, the dispute between the parties should be decided on merits as far as possible. In the present case, the exparte impugned order has been passed only on the basis of the statement of the respondent-workmen, which statement is also being contested to be incorrect by the petitioner-corporation.

¶24

In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned exparte award is set-aside and the present matter is remanded back to the labour Court to decide lis between the parties on merit by giving

¶25

RIMPAL RANI 2025.04.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CM-16330-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-2190-2022 (O&M) -3-

¶27

due opportunities to both of the parties so as to present their respective case. 8. As undertaken by the petitioner, as delay has occurred on their post, which has caused the prejudice to the respondent-workman, the petitioner will pay cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent-workmen at the time of first hearing before the labour Court. In case, the said amount is not being paid by the petitioner-corporation to the respondent-workmen, the exparte impugned award which has been set-aside herein above, will stand revived due to inaction on the part of the petitioner to comply with the terms and conditions of this order. Parties to appear on 09.05.2025 before the Tribunal.

¶28

The present petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶29

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.

¶30

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE

¶31

22.04.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes /No Whether Reportable: Yes/ No

¶32

RIMPAL RANI 2025.04.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ms App (India) Paper Private Limited v. Ashok Kumar Panwar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms App (India) Paper Private Limited v. Ashok Kumar Panwar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court -Ii Faridabad and Others

Ramwati-Ii Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court-Ii, Faridabad and Ors.

Suresh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court-Ii, Fridabad and Ors.

Food Corporation of India Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

Bhupesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kabal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others