Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) -This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award of the labour court, U. P. Varanasi dated 17th April, 1995, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed in adjudication case No. 132 of 1993. The following industrial dispute was referred to before the labour court for adjudication. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...
(2.) ON receipt of the reference, the labour court issued notices to the parties by registered post to file their written statements and adduced the evidence. ON 9th March, 1995, Sri R. K. Tripathi appeared on behalf of the employer, but he has not filed any written statement. Sri Kamla Pati Tripathi appeared on behalf of the workman and filed written statement. 17th April, 1995 was the next date fixed. Since on 17th April, 1995, nobody appeared on behalf of the employer, therefore, matter was proceeded ex parte against the employer, as the workman had filed written statement supported by an affidavit and the employer has not filed any written statement or even objection, in this regard. The Presiding Officer of labour court gave ex parte award accepting the case set up by the workman thereby directing re-instatement of the workman concerned with full back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. When the employer came to know regarding the aforesaid ex parte award, they moved an application supported by an affidavit on 4th September, 1996 for recall of the award aforesaid and to permit them to file reply. The workman concerned has contested the aforesaid application for setting aside the ex parte award moved on behalf of the employer by filing objection dated 16th October, 1996 and has stated that after the publication of the aforesaid award from 22nd December, 1995, the workman himself appeared before the employer and prayed to take work from him and the request letter dated 28th December, 1995 written by the workman was sent by Registered post to the employer. The labour court vide its order dated 30th October, 1996 after considering the case set up by the employer have arrived at the conclusion that the employer have failed to demonstrate that no notice was ever served on them, therefore, refused to set aside the ex parte award. The order dated 30th October, 1996 refusing to set aside the ex parte award gives cogent reasons and nothing new has been argued before this Court while this writ petition was being argued by learned counsel for the petitioner-employer. The findings recorded by the labour court with regard to the service of notice is the finding of fact and cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is demonstrated to be either perverse, or contrary to law. In this view of the matter, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the labour court and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 30th October, 1996 refusing to recall of the ex parte award is maintained and the award of the labour court dated 17th April, 1995 is also maintained. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.;