Sunil Hali, J. - (1.) THE Award was passed by the Tribunal setting aside the Order of the dismissal of the claimant and directing that he be reinstated with consequential benefits including back wages. The petitioner has not questioned this Award and as such the Award attained finality in law. In spite of the Award been published, no step was taken by the petitioner for implementing the Award under Section 6H(1) of U.P.I.D. Act, 1947. An amount of Rs.1,61,582/ -is sought to be recovered from the petitioner -employer. An application was filed on 06.02.1997 and notices were issued to the other side. The petitioner -employer appeared before the Court on 12.05.1997. The matter was decided on 16.05.1997. Objections were filed by the petitioner to the said application. On 16.06.1997, the petitioner did not appear before the Labour Court. The case was listed for 07.07.1997. On that date also, the petitioner did not appear. The matter was listed for 14.07.1997.
(2.) ON his failure to approach, the Lower Court passed an Order dated 13.08.1997 awarding claim of Rs.1,51,018/ -in favour of the claimant. This order of the Labour Court is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. Grounds taken in the writ petition are that Award has been passed ex -parte. It is further stated that the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.71,036/as per his entitlement. On the other hand, the claimant states that the Award has been passed on the basis that the petitioner was drawing salary at the rate of Rs.900/ -per month and on the basis of that an amount of Rs.1,41,000/was calculated as wages plus Bonus of Rs.10,000/ -. As the evidence tendered by the petitioner remain unrebutted, the Tribunal had no other option but to allow this application. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) EVEN though, the order impugned does not indicate as to how the amount of Rs.1,41,000/ -has been worked out but the fact remains that the petitioner had recorded his statement to support his plea, which remained unrebutted and as a result of which the Award was passed. The option was available with the petitioner to file the application for setting aside the Award and rebut all the factual pleas raised by the claimant. This Court while exercising his power under Article 226 can not decide the disputed question of fact. It can not substitute its opinion with that of the fact finding Tribunal. Sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to contest the same before the Labour Court, where he failed to appear despite service. The Court while exercising its power under Article 226 can not correct a judgment but only can set it aside. There is no force in this writ petition and the same shall stand disposed of. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.;