S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) The petition on hand is directed against the award dated 19.4.1991 given by the Labour Court, Allahabad in adjudication case No. 130 of 1989 in the matter of the Respondent workman Bachai Lal. The dispute referred to the Labour Court was as to whether the termination of the services of the workman Bachai Lal by the employer with effect from 1.2.1987 was proper and valid and if not, what relief was the workman entitled to get? The case of the workman was that he was appointed on the post of chaukidar in the establishment of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Nirman Khand, 17 Stanley Road, Allahabad on 1.11.1985 and his services were terminated on 1.2.1987 without any rhyme or reason even though he had been in continuous service from 1.11.1985 to 31.1.1987 and his work was throughout satisfactory. No notice or pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation were paid to him. The case was contested by the employer with the allegation that the workman was never appointed against any permanent post and was rather daily rated employee engaged from time to time depending upon the availability of work. The workman, it was further alleged by the employer, voluntarily left the work and did not turn up to his duties.
(2.) It transpires from the record that after the initial contest and exchange of written statements, the employer absented itself from the ongoing proceeding and, therefore, the Labour Court, on 1.2.1991 ordered to proceed ex parte. The workman examined himself as W.W. 1, stated his case and proved the documents filed by him. A copy of the statement has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Considering the ex parte evidence. Labour Court gave its award dated 19.4.1991 holding that the workman had been in continuous service from 1.11.1985 until his services were terminated with effect from 1.2.1987. It was further held by the Labour Court that the provisions of Sections 6N and 6P of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with even though the workman had been in continuous service for more than 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination of service. The termination was accordingly held to be improper and illegal and the workman was directed to be reinstated with full back wages. The award was published on 5.8.1991 and on 11.11.1991 an application was moved under Rule 16(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 along with an affidavit for setting aside the ex parte award dated 19.4.1991. It was stated in the affidavit that though written statement was filed in the case on behalf of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction Division, 17 Stanley Road, Allahabad but subsequently in a reshuffle of the Department, file of the case was transferred to the Executive Engineer, Barh Prakhand, Allahabad and none appeared on the date fixed in the case on behalf of the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, as it was presumed that the case would be taken care of by the Executive Engineer, Barh Prakhand, Allahabad who had been required by means of letter dated 5.2.1991 of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction Division, Allahabad to do pairvi of the case in the Labour Court on behalf of the Department. It is also alleged that the workman informed the office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction Division. Allahabad on 21.8.1991 that the case had been decided in his favour by the Labour Court and thereafter, on enquiry from the Barh Prakhand of the In rigatoni Department, it transpired that it did not do any pairvi, as it was not impleaded as a party to the case. Thereafter D.G.C. (Civil) on being contacted opined on 19.11.1991 to apply for setting aside the ex parte order and thereafter the Department contacted the Law Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and at the behest of the Government, the Chief Standing Counsel, High Court , Allahabad also gave his opinion for filing restoration application and therefore, the D. G. C. (Civil was again contacted and ultimately on 10.11.1991, it was decided to move an application for setting aside the ex parte award and the application was accordingly filed.
(3.) The Labour Court issued notice to the workman who contested the application for setting aside the ex parte award on grounds, inter alia, that the application was not moved within the period prescribed under Rule 16 (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules for setting aside the ex parte order and no sufficient cause was shown for absence on relevant dates in that the department absented itself from the ongoing proceeding without there being any sufficient cause for absence. The application for restoration having been rejected by the impugned order dated 29.2.1992, the Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition for quashing the ex parte award dated 19.4.1991 as also the order dated 29.2.1992.;