- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This writ petition was heard by this Court and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, it was dismissed on 31st March, 2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid petition.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950, the petitioners- employers have challenged the impugned award dated 13th December, 1995, which is an ex- parte award, passed by the Prescribed Authority, Labour Court, Varanasi in adjudication case No. 108 of 1995, and the order dated 8th November, 1996 rejecting the recall application dated 2nd November, 1996 to set aside the ex-parte award, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-'3' and '12' to the writ petition. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the following dispute was referred to before the Labour Court for adjudication. From the recital of the statement of fact under the award, it is clear that on receipt of the reference, the Labour Court issued notices to both the parties on 15th June, 1995 fixing 4th August, 1995, which was served upon the petitioners-employers on 27th July, 1995. On the dated fixed, the representative of the workman concerned was present, but nobody appeared on behalf of the employers and the next date was fixed as 30th August, 1995 by the Labour Court; on that date workman concerned asked for time, but nobody appeared on behalf of the employers and thereafter the next date was fixed as 21st September, 1995. Thereafter, the office of the Presiding Officer was vacant and now incumbent took charge on 24th November, 1995 and on the same day i. e. , on 24th November, 1995, fresh notice was issued to the employers fixing 13th December, 1995, which too was served upon the employers on 25th November, 1995 and an endorsement with Seal of Principal, Uma Electronics Institute, Varanasi was over there, but in-spite of that nobody appeared on behalf of the employers on 13th December, 1995. The workman concerned had already filed his written statement to which no reply was filed by the employers, therefore, the Labour Court has left no option, but to proceed to pass ex-parte award against the petitioners- employers.
(3.) THE Labour Court considered the case set up by the workman and since nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioners, therefore, the Labour Court gave ex-parte award and recorded a finding that the services of the workman concerned were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'act' ). THE Labour Court held that the termination of services of the workman by the employers with effect from 20th August, 1993 was illegal and unjustified, therefore, directed for reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and full back wages. After the aforesaid award, the workman concerned filed an application dated 22nd July, 1996, under Section 6-H (i) of the Act before the Labour Court, who issued notices on 19th September, 1996 fixing 27th September, 1996 to verify the amount claimed by the workman. This notice was also served upon the petitioners-employers who in turn, filed an application on 2nd November, 1996 for recall of the aforesaid ex-parte award and the affidavit in support thereof and also an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and sought time for bringing an interim order from the competent Court. The employers-petitioners set up their case that they have not received any notice from the Labour Court, therefore, nobody could appear on their behalf. The Labour Court considered the case set up by the employers in their application for recall of the ex-parte award and recording finding with regard to the service of notice that employers in the award proceeding as well as in the subsequent proceeding, were served with the notice issued by the Labour Court. The employers have stated that no counter-affidavit has been filed by the workman concerned to the affidavit filed by the employers, therefore, the statement made in the affidavit should be taken to be true and the ex- parte award should be recalled.;