- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. The petitioner-employers aggrieved by the orders Annexures-'2', '8' and '9' to the petition, passed by the labour Court, U. P. , Agra in Misc. Case No. 108 of 1995 have approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that respondent-workman Sri Rameshwar Dayal, Driver filed an application dated 23rd August, 1995 under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short the 'act'), the computation of difference of wages alleging therein that he was promoted in Grade 'b' with effect from 1st January, 1984, but he is being paid salary in Grade 'c' and has been retired in Grade 'b', but nothing has been paid to him, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'1' to the writ petition. THE labour Court issued notices to the employers, who inspite of notice being served on them remained absent, therefore, the labour Court on 2nd February, 1996 passed an order directing the proceedings to proceed ex-parte against the employers, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'2' to the writ petition. On 11th March, 1996, the evidence of the workman concerned was recorded and ultimately since there was no objection, nor any evidence in rebuttal on behalf of the employers, the Presiding Officer vide its order dated 2nd April, 1996 computed the amount for a sum of Rs. 2,03,175=40 and directed for payment to the workman concerned. After the aforesaid order was passed, the employers filed an application dated 17th August, 1996 in the aforesaid case praying therein that ex-parte order dated 11th March, 1996 be set aside and the Misc. case be restored to its original number, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'3' to the writ petition. This application of the employers was supported by an affidavit of R. D. Nigam an authorised representative of the employers. In short, the employers have set up the case for recall of the ex-parte order that the employers came to know of the order dated 11th March, 1996 when a notice dated 10th July, 1996 was sent by Dy. Labour Commissioner, Agra directing them to comply with the order dated 11th March, 1996. It is stated in the affidavit that the aforesaid notice was received by the employers on 18th July, 1996 and immediately thereafter the office of Loco Foreman, Northern Railway, Tundla informed the concerned officers at Allahabad. The employers could not attend the Court on 22nd December, 1996, as they had no knowledge of any case pending before the labour Court. The other objections taken by the employers were that since D. R. M. Settlement was not made a party in the case, nobody could attend the case. According to the case set up by the employers, the D. R. M. Settlement was the appropriate party. The labour Court during the pendency of their application for setting aside the ex-parte order under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, stayed the execution of the order and ultimately after inviting objection from the workman concerned vide its order dated 28th October, 1996 decided the aforesaid application for setting aside the ex-parte order under Section 33-C (2) of the Act by recording finding that the employers have miserably failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause or sufficient cause for their absence during the proceedings, therefore, the application dated 17th August, 1996 seeking restoration of the ex-parte order has been rejected, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure- '7' to the writ petition. Needless to say, in the teeth of the findings recorded by the labour Court that no sufficient cause made out for the absence of the employers from the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. I do not find any ground for interference with the findings recorded by the labour Court in refusing to set aside the ex- parte order. The application for restoration, in my opinion, has rightly been rejected. The employers though challenged the order dated 11th March, 1996, but failed to make out any case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950 with the order of computation passed by the labour Court. In these circumstances this writ petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. .;