- (1.) The present petition is filed by Bal Vikas Yojana Adhikari along with Programme Officer ICDS, District Panchayat, Office of the District Panchayat, Amreli, being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 18.10.2005 passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court in Reference (LCA) No.2 of 2003, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to order reinstatement of the workman with full back wages within 30 days from the publication of the award and was pleased to award Rs.1,000/- as expenses to the applicant workman.
(2.) After this award was passed on 18.10.2005, the petitioners herein filed I.D. Misc.Application No.10 of 2005 seeking review of the award. The review was sought on the ground that, "After the process was served, the petitioner had engaged an Advocate and that Advocate had told the concerned instructing officer /personnel that he may attend to his work which is very important and also useful to the society and as and when his presence is required, he will be intimated".
(3.) Learned Judge of the Labour Court has considered this Misc.Application No.10 of 2005 in detail and has then rejected the same by order dated 19.08.2006. Learned Judge of the Labour Court has recorded that, "Applicants (petitioners herein) have not approached the Court by filing review application with clean hands and therefore, they are not entitled to get any relief". In this regard, learned Judge of the Labour Court has recorded in para-5 that, "The applicants have made averments in the application which are far from truth; that there is no cause available to the applicants for filing this application; that this application is not maintainable; that the submissions made by both the sides in this application is a matter of record". Learned Judge of the Labour Court has then recorded that:- "The workman was terminated since 01.10.2002, the complaint was filed on 29.10.2002, conciliation proceedings took place, but the matter was not amicably settled and therefore, by order dated 01.02.2003, the matter was referred for adjudication. The workman was given time to produce statement of claim on 05.02.2003. Pursuant to that, the workman produced statement of claim Exh.5 on that very day, i.e. 05.02.2003. The establishment (petitioners herein) were granted time to file reply to the statement of claim up to 26.02.2003. The establishment then filed vakalatnana of learned Advocate Mr.Sanjeev Mehta and asked for time to file reply. The time was granted and thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time, i.e. 26.03.2003, 03.05.2003, 03.07.2003, 06.08.2003, 25.08.2003, 23.12.2003, 05.01.2004, 12.03.2004, 02.04.2004, 26.04.2004, but still the establishment did not file any reply and therefore on 26.04.2004, right to file reply was closed and the deposition of the workman was recorded. His deposition is at Exh.21. After the deposition was over, there was nobody present from the establishment and therefore, its right to cross-examine was also closed. Thereafter, the establishment was given an opportunity to make submissions, but nobody appeared to make submissions on behalf of the establishment. Thus, the establishment continuously remained absenct before the learned Judge of the Labour Court. On every date of hearing, adjournment was sought and the same was granted as far as it was possible. As the establishment chose not to file any reply, not to lead any oral evidence, not to produce any documentary evidence and only adjournment applications were given, that too without any reasonable cause for the same even after closure of right to file reply, there was no request from the establishment to reopen the right to file reply and only adjournments were sought for." 3.1 In view of this, learned Judge of the Labour Court was pleased to record with pain that:- "In view of the aforesaid facts, to mention in the application for review that the establishment was not given reasonable and sufficient opportunity to defend its case is far from truth and contrary to the record." 3.2 That is why the learned Judge of the Labour Court has stated that:- "The applicant has to approach the Court with clean hands and in view of the aforesaid averments in the application, the applicant has not approached the Court with clean hands.";