- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Labour Court and the Presiding Officer recalling the award dated 7.8.1991 and the order of computation passed under Section 33-C(2). The challenge is raised on the ground that the respondent employer had also put in appearance and filed a written statement and thereafter absented from the proceedings, and as such neither the award was exparte nor the computation proceedings were ex parte. He further contends that as a matter of fact the respondent employer refused to accept the notice as a result whereof the Presiding officer had no option but to carry out the computation.
(2.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellant was fully represented and having failed to avail the opportunity before the Labour Court, the contention that the award was ex parte, is unsustainable. The respondent filed an application for considering the recall of the order of computation on the ground that the proceedings went ex parte, in these circumstances and the back ground of the case for which reliance has been placed on the order sheet of the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on record the order sheet of the adjudication case from 23.5.1988 to 7.8.1991 as Annexure 3 to the writ petition.
(3.) Having perused the record, what appears is that the employer had put in appearance, but absented in 1990. On 9.10.1990 in the absence of employer an order was noted by the official of the Court below that the Presiding Officer had resigned and therefore the matter was being adjourned. What appears is that the Court fell vacant thereafter and the cases remained pending. It is after a new Presiding Officer who took over charge that the order sheet was maintained in 1991 and the ex parte proceedings were conducted. Thereafter orders were reserved and an award was announced on 7.8.1991. A recall was filed contending that there was no notice to the employer about the proceedings of 1990 after the resignation of the Presiding Officer.;