A.B.Srivastava, J. - (1.) Two main grounds upon which this writ petition was founded are that the Respondent No. I the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court IV, U.P. Kanpur was under law not eligible to be appointed to the said post and secondly that the award in favour of the Respondent No. 2, the workman, was rendered ex-pane and recall application having been filed by the petitioner employer within the time prescribed and there being sufficient cause, the ex-parte award deserved to be set aside. As far as the ground relating to the appointment of the Presiding Officer being null and void and consequently the proceedings also liable to be quashed is concerned, this question was decided as preliminary issue on April 6, 1933 and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D. Agarwala for reasons given in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14416 of 1981 decided on the same date held the appointment to be valid in law.
(2.) Now there remains the question with regard to the validity or otherwise of the order passed by the Labour Court, rejecting the application of the petitioner for setting aside the award under Rule 16 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957. Under the said Rule, an ex-pane award can be set aside on an application moved within ten days of the under on showing sufficient cause for absence.
(3.) In the instant case, August 11, 1981 was the date fixed for hearing on which date admittedly no one appeared on behalf of the employer and the evidence of the workman having al- ready concluded, the proceeding was closed by the Presiding Officer for rendering the award. The award was accordingly rendered on August 17, 1981 on the basis of the material on record, directing reinstatement with full benefits of the respondent workman. On August 18,1981 an application was moved under Rule 16 by the petitioner for setting aside the said award on the plea that one B.G. Hala, one of the authorised representatives of the petitioner under the direction of the Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, made an enquiry as to whether the Labour Court concerned will sit at Kanpur on August 11, 1981 or not. Shri Hala on enquiry from the Office of the Court learnt that the Court from August 10 to 12, 1981 will sit at Agra, as such on August 11, 1981 there will be no hearing, and he accordingly informed Senior Advocate Shri Anand Prakashi at Delhi. This was the reason for non-appearance of anyone to participate in the hearing on behalf of the petitioner on August 11,1981. On learning about the award having been rendered on August 17, 1981, the application for setting aside the same was moved the next day. The application was opposed by the other side. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was no proof of the fact that any information was sought by Shri B.G.Hala and was given on behalf of the Court that the Court would sit at Agra from August 10 to 12, 1981. It was futher observed that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity in the past also to lead evidence which he did not avail. It was specifically observed by the Presiding Officer that it was not acceptable that the Court was to remain away from Kanpur on August 10 and 11, 1981, rather a number of cases were fixed in the Kanpur Court on the said date, and the parties in those cases participated in the proceeding. With these conclusions, the application for the recall of the award was rejected.;