Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 366 (PNJ)

Municipal Committee v. Kulwant Kumar

2005-03-10

M.M.AGGARWAL, S.S.NIJJAR

body2005
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. 2. In our opinion, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. 3. The entire claim in the writ petition is based on the plea that the petitioners did not receive any notice with regard to the pendency of the Industrial Dispute/Reference. The record shows that the dispute was referred by way of reference No. 14 of 1989 on (sic)06.1988. On 10.11.1988, ex parte proceedings were ordered as the Municipal Committee did not appear. On 1 4.12.1988, an earlier award was passed ex parte against the Municipal Committee. On 09.07.1990, on an application made by the Municipal Committee, the ex-parte award was set aside and the reference was re-numbered. On 28.11.1990, the written statement was filed on behalf of the Municipal Committee signed by their Legal Assistant. Thereafter, the Municipal Committee did not produce any evidence and also did not participate in the proceedings before the Labour Court. Again on 06.10.1994, ex-parte award was passed against the Municipal Committee which was published in the Gazette at pages 238-239 on 10.09.1995. On 14.04.1997, the Municipal Committee filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte award. 4. The respondents have set out the zimini orders passed by the Labour Court, which show that the petitioners were duly represented on 02.08.1990, 28.11.1990 and 18.01.1991, 24.04.1991 and 06.06.1991, when the management persistently failed t o produce evidence, the Presiding Officer passed an order on 02.06.1993, summoning the witnesses within seven days. Inspite of the repeated adjournments having been given, the petitioners failed to produce any evidence and ultimately absented on 02.12.1993. The Labour court on 07.10.1993 had imposed costs in the sum of Rs. 50/- on the management for not producing the evidence. The Labour Court after noticing the aforesaid facts, has held that the workman did not object to the earlier ex-parte award being set aside. Thereafter, numerous opportunities had been given to the management to produce evidence. The Labour court on 07.10.1993 had imposed costs in the sum of Rs. 50/- on the management for not producing the evidence. The Labour Court after noticing the aforesaid facts, has held that the workman did not object to the earlier ex-parte award being set aside. Thereafter, numerous opportunities had been given to the management to produce evidence. The Labour Court has rightly held that the application for setting aside the ex parte award after a period of almost two years is not maintainable as the Labour Court had become functus officio after a period of 30 days of the a ward being published in the official gazette. 5. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition Dismissed.