S.R.Singh J. - (1.) Heard Sri P.N.Pandey learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R. C. Shukla counsel appearing for respondent No 2 and Standing Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 3.
(2.) The petition is directed against the award dated 23-9-1994 given by (he Labour Court, Meerut in Adjudication Case No. 74 of 1994 and the order dated 6-7-1995 whereby the Labour Court has rejecred the application moved on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the award dated 23-9-1994 which was admittedly given ex parte,
(3.) Rule 16 (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 provides that the Labour Court, Pribuiial or an Arbitrator, as the case may be may set aside the order passed against a party in his absence, if within ten days of such order, the party applies in writing for setting aside such order and show sufficient cause for his absence. Thus the proposition that the Labour Court has powsr to set aside the ex pane award cannot be doubted in view of the provisions of Rule 16 (2) of the U P. Industrial Disputes Rules. 1957. Even otherwise it has been ruled by the Supreme Court in Satnam Verma v. Union of India 1985 (50) FLR 6, that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to set aside an ex pane order or award.;