- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award dated 28-2-95 and the recovery certificate dated 13-8-96.
(2.) HEARD learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the respon dent No. 2 was an employee of the petitioner and his service was terminated on 1-7-90. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court, Varanasi, which has passed the impugned award dated 28-2-95. The version of the respondent No. 2 was that he was an employee from 1-6-84 to 1-7-90 continuously but thereafter his ser vice was terminated without giving retrenchment compensation and notice pay. It appears that on behalf of the petitioner onesri R. K. Srivastava appeared on same dates before the Labour Court, but subsequently he stopped appearing, hence the ex pane award was passed against the petitioner.
(3.) A restoration application was filed but that has been rejected by the order dated 11-4-96. A perusal of the order dated 11-4-96 shows that there was gross negligence on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the State authorities do not take interest in the litigation against the State since no body is personally responsible. In the order dated 11-4-96 it has been mentioned that no writ ten statement was filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court, Varanasi. The restoration application was filed on 14-12-95, i. e. after considerable delay. The Labour Court has held that the petitioner did not take the case seriously as it was under the impression that it was not necessary for the State to comply with the orders of the Labour Court. This impression was clearly misconceived. Sri R. K. Srivastava who had ap peared for the petitioner on several oc casion prior to 28-2-95 himself filed the restoration application dated 14-12-95. Thus, it is evident that he had appeared on some occasions on behalf of the petitioner, but when he saw that the petitioner was not taking interest seriously he stopped appear ing.;