ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) Petitioner-employer Triveni Structurals Limited approached this Court by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 1/09/1999, Annexure-2 to this writ petition, whereby the Industrial Tribunal (I), Allahabad, hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' has rejected the application filed by the petitioner-employer dated 17/05/1999, copy of which is attached as Annexure-5 to this writ petition and refused to set aside the ex-parte award dated 25/09/1998. Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed in adjudication case No. 1 of 1998.
(2.) The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the respondent-workman was appointed on 13/01/1994, according to the case set up by the petitioner-employer in the present writ petition, on daily rate as casual worker. Thereafter he was appointed on different dates and lastly he was appointed, according to the petitioner, from the period from 13/11/1995 till 20/12/1995. The petitioner-employer further submitted that on 20/12/1995 the services of the workman concerned stand automatically terminated. From the different dates it is clear that the workman was initially appointed on 13/01/1994 and with artificial breaks, he was allowed to continue till 19/12/1995 when his services were terminated. It is further submitted that an application was filed by the respondent-workman before the Deputy Labour Commissioner for conciliation on 26/02/1996. The notice of this conciliation proceeding was issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and the petitioner-employer represented their case and ultimately since no conciliation was possible, therefore the matter was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. The reference of the Tribunal runs as under: " Vernacular matter omitted"
(3.) After receipt of the reference, the Tribunal has registered a case and issued notices to the respective parties. The respondent-workman has appeared pursuant to the aforesaid notice issued by the Tribunal, but the petitioner-employer, though the notices were sent by registered post A/D, did not turn up. The Tribunal has no option but to proceed ex-parte after fixing several dates and thereafter gave an ex-parte award on September 25, 1998 holding that the termination of the services of the workman concerned was illegal and unjustified and that the workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.;