D. P. Singh, J. - (1.) -Though this writ petition is listed for orders, counsel for both the parties state that otherwise the case is ripe for hearing and the time consumed for disposing of the stay vacation application and the writ petition itself would be the same, therefore, the writ petition be finally disposed of. The office report dated 6th March, 2003, also confirms that the case is ripe for hearing. In view of the aforesaid the writ petition is being finally disposed of.
(2.) HEARD Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. M. Garg, learned counsel for the contesting respondent. This writ petition is directed against two orders. An ex-parte labour court award dated 21.8.1986 and order dated 16.8.1987 by which recall application for recalling the aforesaid award was rejected. The respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was employed as an operator in the erstwhile U. P. State Electricity Board (now U. P. Power Corporation Ltd.) on daily wage basis w.e.f. 10th September, 1978. Since the workman was not allowed to work from 2.6.1979 he approached the Conciliation Officer and upon a failure report the matter was referred under Section 4K to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 251 of 1985. The reference was to the following effect : "Kya sewayojakon dwara apne shramik Satish Chandra Shringaria ki sewayen dinank 2.6.1979 se samapt kiya jana uchit tathav/athwa waidhanik hai? Yadi nahin to sambandhit shramik kya labh/chhatipurti (Relief) pane ka adhikari hai. Tatha anya kis vivran sahit?
(3.) THE workman filed his written statement but the petitioner did not file its written statement, though for the said purpose 28.6.1986 and 15.7.1986 was fixed. On both the aforesaid dates, holiday was declared. It appears that 2.8.1986 was the next date fixed for filing of the written statement by the petitioner. None appeared for the petitioner on 2.8.1986 when the labour court passed an order that proceedings will be ex-parte against the petitioner. It is not evident from the order sheet, which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition, as to when the arguments were heard or when the orders were reserved. From the order-sheet only this much is apparent that the award was signed on 21.8.1986 and the same was notified on 1.10.1986. The case of the petitioner is that from 11.7.1986 to 22nd of July, 1986, there was complete strike in the petitioner's establishment and, therefore, no one could appear on 15.7.1986. The case of the petitioner further is that after the withdrawal of the strike when the representative of the petitioner went to the labour court on 26.7.1986 he noted 2.9.1986 as the next day fixed. When the representative went to the Court on 2.9.1986 he found that an order to proceed ex-parte was passed on 2.8.1986. Immediately on the next day, i.e., 3.9.1986 he made an application for recall of the order dated 2.8.1986 and also filed his personal affidavit pointing out that by mistake he had noted 2.9.1986 instead of 2.8.1986. The workman filed detailed objection to the aforesaid recall application. However, the labour court vide the impugned order rejected the application holding that all the officials of the petitioner's establishment were not on strike, therefore, they ought to have been present in Court.;