- (1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Deepak R. Dave on behalf of the applicants - original respondents and learned advocate Mr.D.J.Bhatt for opponent - original petitioner - workman, so also, the learned AGP Mr.N.D.Gohil for opponent No.2.
(2.) This application, initially, circulated before this Court on 8.8.2003 and on that occasion, learned advocate Mr.Deepak Dave for the applicants had argued the matter at length and since this Court was not inclined to allow the application and when this Court was about to pass the order rejected the present application, at that time, learned advocate Mr.Deepak Dave requested this Court not to pass rejecting the application and requested to grant of some time to enable him to seek instructions from his client about withdrawal of this matter by adjourning this matter for today. Today also, when this matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate Mr.Dave again has requested this Court to show some indulgence but today also this Court has made it clear to the learned Advocate Mr.Dave that this Court is not inclined to entertain this application and asked him to make clear whether the applicants intend to withdraw the present application or not, but learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that the applicants are not prepared to withdraw the present application and further requested this Court to pass appropriate orders. In light of this background, this Court is required to examine the matter on merits.
(3.) In the present application, the applicants employer have raised contention that this Court has passed the order on 21st April, 2003 without hearing the present applicants and since certain facts regarding pendency of restoration application and other facts are required to be brought to the notice of this Court, this application is preferred. The second contention which has been raised that the original petitioner has not placed the entire facts before this Court and also not brought to the notice of this Court that restoration application being Misc. Application No.75 / 2001 under the Payment of Wages Application No.159 / 1996 has been filed by the employer before the Labour Court, Kalol which is pending for adjudication. Similarly, restoration application No.74 / 2001 in Recovery Application No.405 / 1988 has also been preferred before the labour court, Kalol which is also pending for restoration along with delay condonation application. In Reference No.332 / 1988, Misc. Application No.73 / 2001 has been preferred for restoration which is also pending for adjudication. In Reference No.332/1988, according to the applicants, the applicant Nos.2 & 3 were never party in the Reference proceedings and the award of the said reference is the subject matter of all the disputes. Therefore, the applicant Nos. 2 & 3 have been unnecessarily dragged into litigation though they are not concerned with the award. The applicants have also pointed out that because of the circumstances beyond their control and that is how they remained absent and exparte order has been passed and in absence of the details not given by the original petitioner, the order in question in this application, has been passed by this Court. It is also contended by the applicants that these facts were very well in the knowledge of the Union but the facts were not disclosed by the original petitioner before this Court. It is further submitted that just to frustrate the pending proceedings and to become the same infructuous, the workman had filed the main matter and in their absence, has obtained the orders by the original petitioner workman. Therefore, the prayer made in the application to direct the labour court, Kalol in Payment of Wages Authority to hear the restoration application submitted by the applicants. However, some allegations made against the petitioner as to deliberate suppression of the material facts and earlier similar type of case was filed by the original petitioner in Payment of Wages Application No.8/1988 which was rejected by the labour court. There is delay in filing present review application and therefore, prayer is made to recall or review the orders passed by this Court on date 21.4. 2003.;