The Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the respondent with companytinuity in service and full back wages calculated at the last drawn wages which were Rs.1,100/ per month.
The award of the Labour Court however numberes that the management was duly served of the claim but numberwritten statement was filed by it and, therefore, it was proceeded ex parte.
He, therefore, raised a dispute to the Union falsely alleging that he was working with Messrs Ram Saroman Mishra Jali Factory of the petitioner as a machine man since 1986 and his last drawn wages were Rs.1,100/ per month.
The terms of reference were as under Whether the services of Shri Vishwa Nath Pandey have been terminated illegally and or unjustifiably by the management and, if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
He further alleged that his services were terminated illegally in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act for short, the ID Act on 31/12/1991 and his wages for the months of 1/10/1991 to 31/12/1991 were also number paid.
The petitioner has challenged order dated 27/4/2007 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No.3042 of 2007.
The case of the petitioner, in short, is that the respondent has taken advantage of the kindness shown by him by allowing him to stay in his house free of companyt from 1988 to 1991.
He claimed that he was unemployed since the date of his termination and he is entitled to full back wages and companytinuity in service.
The Secretary Labour , Delhi Administration, Delhi, referred the said dispute to the Labour Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
He came to know about this on 19/3/2003 when some person came to his house and informed him that he has to appear on 20/3/2003 at 10.00 a.m. in the Implementation Cell.
According to the petitioner, when he requested the respondent to vacate his house and, in fact got his house vacated, the respondent was annoyed.
According to the petitioner, he was unaware of this award since numberice was number served on him.
According to the petitioner he does number own any jali factory as alleged and therefore there is numberquestion of employing the petitioner as a machine man.
The Labour Court vide its order dated 5/3/2005 rejected the application of the petitioner.
Before the Labour Court, the respondent filed an affidavit.
It is the case of the petitioner that he was number served with the numberice and companysequently, he did number appear before the Labour Court.
Delay companydoned.
The petitioner thereafter moved an application for setting aside the ex parte award before the Labour Court.
