1976 PLP 543 (PLC)

S. 36(2)(a)-Powers of Labour Court-Enforcement of attendance Service of summons-Mere pasting of summons on door of party Not sufficient to proceed ex parte. Mere pasting of the summons should not be considered to be sufficient service of party. This will lead to corrupt practice. Any party can easily take advantage of this practice. In such a case where a party cannot be found, the Court should repeat the summons and also order a registered acknowledgment due notice to be sent to the party concerned. Sarwar Abbas for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. This is an appeal against an award dated October 11, 1972, whereby the learned Chairman of the First Sind Labour Court ordered the re-instatement of the respondent. The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly put are these. 2. The respondent had joined the Company of Messrs Qutubuddin on 1st March 1971, as a Driver at a monthly salary of Rs. 200. His services were terminated on 15th March 1972, without giving him an opportunity to show cause or giving him a month's notice or salary in lieu thereof. 3. The award was given ex parte against the appellant by the learned Labour Court. The appellant had not filed any written statement. In the circumstances of the case, which I would presently mention. I think there was no sufficient justification for proceeding ex parte against the appellant. The application under section 25-A of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was filed on 9th June 1972. The Court adjourned the case for 10th July 1972. On that date due to curfew the matter was adjourned for 13th July 1972. Again on 13th July 1972 the application was adjourned, due to curfew for 25th July 1972. On 25th July 1972, the respondent was present but the appellant was absent. The matter was adjourned for 16th August 1972. The record of the case does not show that any summons was issued to the appellant for 16th August 1972. On 16th August 1972, the matter was again adjourned for 7th September 1972; again the record does not show that any summons were issued to the appellant for 7th September 1972. The Order Sheet of 7th September 1972, however, shows that a fresh notice was ordered to be issued on 25th July 1972, but the same was not issued. The Court therefore, on 7th September 1972, ordered fresh notice to be issued for 22nd September 1972. The office issued notice for 22nd September 1972. The endorsement of the Bailiff on the summons for 22nd September 1972, states that the appellant was not available, therefore, the summons was pasted on the door. The learned Chairman of the Labour Court treated this to be sufficient service and ordered ex parse proceedings against the appellant. I do not consider this to be sufficient service. Mere pasting of the summons should not be considered to be sufficient service on a party. This will lead to corrupt practice any party can easily take advantage of this practice. In such a case where a party cannot be found, the Court should repeat the summons and also order a registered acknowledgment due notice to be sent to party concerned. I would hold that the service on the appellant was not sufficient. The award of the learned Chairman of the Labour Court is, therefore, set aside. The appellant is ordered to file a written statement within a week from today. The Court to dispose of the application thereafter.