Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ashish Arunkumar Kejriwal, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Industrial Court that rejected his application to set aside an ex-parte award passed against the deceased proprietor of a business and a person named Amar Anilkumar Kejriwal, who was not a legal heir. The respondent, Mills Mazdoor Sabha, had filed an application to bring Amar Anilkumar Kejriwal on record as a legal heir without verifying the correct legal heirs. The Industrial Court had passed an ex-parte award and later rejected the petitioner's application for setting it aside. The High Court noted that the respondent admitted that no person named Amar Anilkumar Kejriwal was a legal heir of the deceased. The service of notice by pasting at the address was not valid as it was not served on any correct legal heir. The court held that the purpose of service is to ensure that the correct person is notified; passing an order against a wrong person subverts justice. The petitioner's counsel pointed out that there are four legal heirs of the deceased who need to be brought on record. The High Court quashed both the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Industrial Court for fresh adjudication after bringing all legal heirs on record.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Service of Notice - Proper Party - Service of notice on a person who is not a legal heir of the deceased is not valid service; the burden lies on the plaintiff/petitioner to bring correct and necessary parties on record. (Paras 2-3) B) Industrial Law - Ex-Parte Award - Setting Aside - An ex-parte award passed against a dead person and a non-existent legal heir is liable to be quashed as it creates complications in execution. (Para 4) C) Civil Procedure - Ex-Parte Proceedings - Validity - An order passed against a person who is not a necessary or proper party subverts the purpose of adjudication; the court must verify proper service before proceeding ex-parte. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an ex-parte award passed against a deceased proprietor and a non-existent legal heir is valid and whether the Industrial Court erred in rejecting the application to set aside the ex-parte order.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed and set aside both the impugned orders of the Industrial Court and remanded the matter back to the Industrial Court for fresh adjudication after bringing all legal heirs of the deceased proprietor on record.
Law Points
- Service of notice on wrong person is not valid service
- Ex-parte award against dead person is void
- Burden on plaintiff to bring correct legal heirs on record
- Court must verify proper service before proceeding ex-parte
