Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) The respondent no.1 allegedly was removed from service on 5.11.1990. Thereafter, he got the dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal almost after 16 years and on 14.3.2007 the State Government referred the matter with a specific question as to whether the termination of the respondent no.1 with effect from 5.11.1990 was legal. It had also put a consequential query that if it was found that it was illegal then what relief the respondent no.1 was entitled for. On 12.9.2007, an award was passed and it was found that the respondent no1 was illegally terminated from service. He was reinstated with full back wages and was also awarded a cost of Rs. 500/-. The petitioner on the basis of the fact that the award was ex parte and was passed without any notice to the petitioner moved an application for the recall of it. When on 2.9.2008, the prescribed authority rejected the recall application, the instant writ petition was filed.
(2.) The petitioner submitted that it was incumbent upon the prescribed authority to have heard the petitioner and that affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was imperative. To bolster his submission, the leanrned counsel took recourse to the judgments reported in (Radha Krishna Mani Tripathi vs. L.H.Patel and another, 2009 120 FLR 320) and (Anil Sood vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, 2001 10 SCC 534). He further submits that the industrial dispute was very belatedly raised and that the reference was a stale one and therefore, the workman was not entitled for any relief.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-workman supported the award as also the order by which the recall application was rejected and submitted that the petitioner althrough had knowledge of the proceedings in the Labour Court. He further submits that the award therefore, was correctly passed. The application to recall the award was also rightly rejected.;