Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner. On an industrial dispute raised on behalf of respondent No. 4, a reference was forwarded to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court for adjudication, who made an award dated 30.07.2010.
(2.) IT is contended that the award was ex parte and a recall application was moved by the petitioner on 1st March, 2011, but since the Court was lying vacant, the application remained pending and no date was fixed. It is further contended that the petitioner did not have any knowledge or notice about the appointment of Presiding Officer, who is alleged to have sent a notice by speed post, which was never received by the petitioner and the fact is recorded in the order sheet that the notice sent by speed post was not returned back as unserved and treating it to be sufficient service, the Presiding Officer, dismissed the recall application vide order dated 03.08.2011. It is also stated that without recording any reason or reference to the cause shown by the petitioner for not appearing in the proceedings, the ex parte award has been put to execution and the notice under Section 6 H (1) of the Act for recovery of the amount has been issued. Prima facie, the appears to be force in the submission and the matter requires scrutiny.
(3.) ISSUE notice to respondent No. 4, who may file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall take steps for service of notice on the respondent by registered post within one week. Office shall issue notices returnable at an early date.;