Arvind Kumar, J.@mdashThe petitioner management inducted respondent No. 2 workman on the post of Tuner w.e.f. 2.2.1994. His services
were terminated on 4.8.1995. Feeling aggrieved with his termination, the workman served a demand notice upon the management seeking re-
instatement with continuity of service and back wages. On failure of reconciliation proceedings, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to
the Labour Court for adjudication. The workman filed his claim statement before the Labour court taking the plea that his services have been
terminated illegally on 4.8.1995 without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as
the Act) as he has worked for more than 240 days continuously with the management. It was further averred that the management had not paid
him the salary for the month of July, 1995.
2. It appears from the record that the approach of the management in contesting the claim of the workman was very causal. No reply to the claim
statement was filed by the management. Besides, it was proceed ex parte twice, firstly on 1.6.2001, which, it had succeeded in getting set aside
and thereafter secondly on 11.1.2002.
3. The Labour Court recorded the ex parte evidence of workman on 25.1.2002. After analyzing the ex parte evidence adduced by the workman,
the Labour Court vide the impugned award dated 5.2.2002 held the termination of services of workman as unjustified. Accordingly, it awarded re-
instatement with continuity of service and full back wages to the workman.
4. Thereafter, due to non-implementation of the impugned award dated 5.2.2002, the appropriate Government through the Labour Inspector, on
23.4.2003, filed a criminal complaint against the management for committing offence u/s 29 read with Section 32 of the Act.
5. Now through this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner management has sought quashing of order dated
11.1.2002 vide which it was proceeded against the ex parte; subsequently ex parte award dated 5.2.2002 and the criminal complaint filed by the
appropriate Government against them in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari for offence u/s 29 read with Section 32 of the Act and
subsequent proceedings thereto.
6. Upon notice of the petition, respondent No. 2-workman filed the written statement controverting the averments made in the petition. It is
averred that the proceedings before the Labour Court were well within the knowledge of the petitioner-management and that the instant petition
has been filed only to wriggle out of the provisions of Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Act. Dismissal of the petition has been sought.
7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance we have carefully gone through the paper-book.
8. It has been contended that non-appearance by the representative of the management on 11.1.2002 was on account of the fact that Shri Sanjay
Parik and Shri Sanjay Kapoor, who had been representing the management before the Labour Court had resigned in October, 2001. Thus, the
absence was not intentional. The petitioner-management was not aware of the ex parte award dated 5.2.2002 as such, there was no question of its
implementation. It has also been argued that the workman had led no documentary evidence to prove his case and has referred to a decision
rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Kashmir Singh 2004 (1) R.S.J. 1 wherein the ex parte award passed
against the State was set aside by observing that the State deserves to be given a chance to put forward sits defence. We are not convinced with
the contentions of counsel for the petitioner. Normally, ex parte orders are not appreciated and it is always the desire of the Court that the parties
should contest the litigation on merits. However, where the process of the Court is sought to be misused and exploited with the idea to delay the
proceedings and to scuttle the due process of law, then the courts are not to grant indulgence to such a party. In the instant case, the management
had been callous right from the beginning. They were initially proceeded ex parte on 1.6.2001, which was set aside on 12.10.2001. This was on
the second time they were proceeded ex parte on 11.1.2002. From Annexures P-5! and P-6 it reveal that said Sanay Parekh and Sanjay Kapoor
had resigned somewhere in October, 2001, whereas the management was already aware of the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour
Court. There was sufficient time with the management for making an alternative arrangement before they could again be proceeded ex parte on
11.1.2002. However, there is no explanation of having taken any action in due course of time. The present petition has been filed after about two
years of the passing of the impugned award. The negligent conduct of the petitioner is of highest magnitude. They did not care even to know the
status of the proceedings pending before the Labour Court in all these years. Such a party has to be shown the door and denied the discretion to
set aside the ex parte proceedings of the award passed against them. The present petition is only to scuttle down the rigor of Section 29 read with
Section 32 of the Act, which admittedly has been initiated against them for non compliance of the award. The petitioner-management cannot seek
any assistance from Kashmir Singh''s cane (supra) as in that case the representative of the management had to appear in number of cases and he
had a direction to appear in some of the case and there was some confusion with regard to non-representation on behalf; of the management,
which is not the case here. A bare perusal of statement of workman (Annexure P-8) it reveals that he had claimed to have worked with the
management from 2.2.1994 to 4.8.1995 and has placed on record E.S.I. card as Ex. W1 re-grading the proof of job. The petitioner-management
has not placed on record any document to show that the Court could come to a contrary, view if the management had led evidence.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed accordingly.