S.RAFAT ALAM, J. - (1.) In the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., has prayed for quashing of the order of the Industrial Tribunal (III), U.P., Kanpur, dated July 4, 2001 rejecting its application to recall the ex-parte award dated January 17, 2000 and also for quashing of the ex-parte award dated January 17, 2000.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the workman respondent No. 2 who has also filed caveat.
(3.) It appears that an industrial dispute in respect of termination of service of respondent No. 2 was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication under Section 4 (k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 177 of 1999. The learned Tribunal accordingly issued summons to the parties calling upon them to file their statement and October 15, 1999 was fixed for their appearance. The respondent workman appeared on the date and filed his statement, but the petitioner did not appear nor filed any written statement. The matter was thereafter fixed on several dates, i.e. November 15, 1999, November 29, 1999, December 8, 1999 and on December 16, 1999 but the petitioner did not appear on any date and, therefore, the Tribunal ordered to proceed ex-parte and accordingly by the impugned award dated January 17, 2000, held that the order of termination of the workman dated August 10, 1998 is illegal and accordingly gave the award in favour of the workman. The aggrieved petitioner moved this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25522 of 2000 which was disposed of on May 16, 2001 with the following order: "The petitioner can file an application before respondent No. 1 to recall the said order on this ground. If the petitioner submits an application to recall the order, it shall be entertained by respondent No. 1 and shall be disposed of on merits after affording opportunity to the petitioner and respondent No. 2 preferably within six weeks from the date of presentation of the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 has taken proceedings for execution of the award. It is open to the respondent No. 1 to pass an appropriate interim stay order till the restoration application is decided.";