S.N.Srivastava, J. - (1.) Subject matter of impugnment in the instant petition is the Award dated 3.6.1995 rendered by the Labour Court Varanasi pursuant to Reference No. 105 of 1992 made under Section 4 K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in which Industrial Dispute referred was "Whether the employers have wrongfully terminated the services of Employee Sri Lalji Pandey son of Sri Dev Nath Pandey, Booking Clerk with effect from 8.12.1990 and if so, what relief/compensation he is entitled to get?"
(2.) It would appear from the record that the petitioner-employer entered appearance through his representative on 7.7.1992. on which date time was sought to file written statement on behalf of the petitioner employer. On 21.10.1994, time was again granted to the representative of the petitioner fixing 15.12.1994 and again upto 3.2.1995. Again, time was granted on 2.3.1995 fixing 28.4.1995. It would further appear that in the meantime representative of the petitioner reclused himself and as a consequence notice was issued to the petitioner employer on 1.5.1995, which it is alleged was served to the petitioner on 10.5.1995. In this conspectus, the Labour Court proceeded exparte and rendered the award dated 3.6.1995.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned award stating that it is unsustainable on grounds that there is no decision or adjudication even of claims of the workman in the award on merit inasmuch as there is no discussion at all of the materials on record. He further canvassed that even if the Labour Court was inclined to proceed exparte, it was under a duty to analytically examine the materials on record and record reasons for his conclusions. The learned counsel further argued that the award is telescoped into very few paragraphs and contains no discussion on merit and hence, it being not in conformity with the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rules made there-under , renders itself liable to be quashed. Per contra, Smt. Sarita Jhingan strove hard to prop up the award urging that the Labour Court had repeatedly afforded opportunity from 1992 onwards and being satisfied that the petitioner was evading appearance, was constrained to proceed exparte. She also tried to convince that it was not necessary for the Labour Court to delve into details and ultimately contended that the award was rightly passed.;