Merely Because Postal Notice Was Not Returned Unserved, ID Tribunal Could Not Draw Adverse Inference Of Non-appearance: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

"The purpose and aim of this [Industrial Disputes] Act is not only to provide a permanent machinery for the settlement of industrial disputes but also aims to improve the service conditions of industrial labour force. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not strictly applicable to any proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act even though the principles enshrined in the Code may be applied by the Tribunal on a case to case basis", said the Delhi High Court while remanding an industrial dispute back to the Industrial Tribunal.

Background

The petition had been moved by one Reena Pathak, aggrieved by the order of Industrial Tribunal at Dwarka that had disposed of her claim on the premise that it was a case of 'No Dispute/Claim'. She prayed that the impugned award of the Tribunal be set aside and she be granted one opportunity to file her claim statement before the Tribunal which ought to be decided on merits.

In the facts of the case, the Tribunal presumed it was a case of No Claim since the Petitioner had failed to appear or file her claim before the Tribunal on two instances. Assailing this presumption, the Petitioner claimed that she had approached the Union of India for making a reference to the Industrial Tribunal qua her illegal termination as a sweeper in the Respondent school. Thus, there was no reason as to why she would not be interested in the adjudication of her dispute.

Arguments

She submitted that the Tribunal had presumed, without any basis that the Petitioner stood served but had still failed to file any claim. It was asserted that even though there was nothing to show that the Petitioner was duly served, the Tribunal had merely proceeded on the basis that once the postal article sent to the Petitioner had not been returned unserved it had to be presumed that due notice had been served on her.

The Respondent on the other hand contested the petition titled "Reena Pathak v. Union of India & Ors." stating that the Petitioner's plea that she never received any notice from the Tribunal was merely an afterthought.

Findings

Finding merit in the Petitioner's submission, Justice Rekha Palli held "Merely because the solitary postal notice sent to the petitioner did not return unserved, the Tribunal could not have drawn any adverse inference against her on account of her non-appearance. Once the petitioner did not appear despite issuance of notice to her, the Tribunal ought to have made at least one more endeavour to ensure service of notice upon her, especially when an adverse inference was being drawn against her only because of non-return of the unserved notice".

She observed that the Tribunal had strictly followed the procedure imbibed in CPC and that such an approach was wholly unwarranted and defeated the very purpose for which the Act was enacted. "The Tribunal has, in my view, while drawing a presumption against the petitioner, of having been served with due notice, seems to have strictly applied the provisions of Order V CPC while losing sight of the fact that it was dealing with a dispute raised by an aggrieved workman under a special act", she added.

Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal.

Arguments for the Petitioner were advanced by Advocates Ashok Kr. Verma and Mr.Abhay Kumar and for the Respondents by CGSC Manish Mohan and Advocate Manisha Saroha 

Click Here To Download Judgment

[Read Judgment]