VYAS, J. - (1.)THE instant petition is directed against the judgment and award dated 03. 12. 2002 (Annexure 4) passed by the, Labour Court, Jodhpur.
(2.)BRIEF facts giving rise to the instant petition are as follows:
The Central Government has made a reference to the Labour Court on 23. 12. 1990 to the effect that "whether the action of the management of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phones-II, Jodhpur in terminating the services of Shri Pukhraj Sen i. e. , from 31. 12. 1984 is legal and justified? And if not, to what relief the workman is entitled.

After receiving the reference, the Labour Court has issued the notices to the parties and the respondent No. 2 has submitted the statement of claim (Annex. 1) before the Labour Court. The petitioners have submitted a reply to the statement of claim vide Annexure 2.

The Labour Court after hearing the parties, vide order dated 03. 12. 2002 held that the termination of the respondent No. 2 was illegal and ordered to grant 50% back wages from 23. 12. 1999 i. e. , from the date of reference.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 03. 12. 2002, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition.

(3.)HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 was not retrenched, but he himself absented from the duty. The petitioners, thereafter, sent two notices dated 30. 10. 85 and 07. 01. 86 to the respondent No. 2 by registered post, which were duly served upon him. Despite that, no response was given to the notices. Therefore, there was no fault on the part of the petitioners. It was the fault of the respondent No. 2, who himself not appeared despite the service of notices. Thus, it appeared that he himself abandoned the services and it cannot be said that the respondent No. 2 was retrenched from the services.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 has raised the dispute after a period of more than 11 years. In such circumstances, there was no justification to entertain the said reference and the reference should have been dismissed on the ground of delay of more than 11 years.