S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner -workman is challenging the award dated 1.12.1992, Annexure P/1, vide which the reference arising from the demand notice was dismissed in default and also the order dated 4.9.2000, copy Annexure P/2, vide which his application for setting - aside the order was dismissed.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has argued that as per the record, the dale of termination of the service of the petitioner is 7.9.1984. The demand notice is dated 7.9.1984 (i.e. of the same date). The reference was made on 4.1.1995. He also states that the issues were framed on 8.4.1995 and thereafter the matter was adjourned for Management evidence upto 19.2.90. The fact that the matter was adjourned for management evidence is apparent from the order dated 8.4.1985, i.e. the part of the order below the issues, which is as under : - "To come up from evidence of the respondent on 18.7.1985". It is also apparent from the record that there is another order dated 2.8.1990 in which it is mentioned as under "No evidence present. Respondent employment produced his evidence on 15.10.90. Last opportunity." Thereafter, on 15.10.90, the management has examined ore witness and sought adjournment. The matter was adjourned for remaining evidence of the Management for 15.11.1990. On 15.11.1990, the case was adjourned for evidence of the parties. However, the management had not concluded the evidence. The matter was thereafter adjourned for one reason or the other and ultimately on 1.12.1992, the case was dismissed in default.
(3.) THE application for selling -aside the order of dismissal in default is dated 16.5.1994. The reasons for rejection of the application given in the order are as under : - "11. No explanation and justification for delay in filing the instant application has been given by the applicant and it has been held in the ruling supra Inder Singh v. Presiding Officer, that the application for restoration of the reference in the Labour Court which was filed after more than a year without any justified explanation, was rightly dismissed by the Labour Court especially when the workman not found serious about prosecuting his case. So, in this view of the matter, the application which has been filed after long delay of about one and half years after dismissal of the reference for non - prosecution, cannot be accepted. There is, thus, no ground to restore the reference in question. The issue is, thus, held against the applicant and in favour of respondent.";