- (1.) The petitioner-workman has approached this court impugning the order dated 14.6.2011, passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereby the application dated 23.9.2010 filed by the petitioner for re-calling of the order dated 23.9.2010, dismissing the reference on account of statement made by the representative of the petitioner, was dismissed.
(2.) In the present case, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute claiming that his services had been dispensed with in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'), though he had completed more than 240 days immediately prior thereto. The reference was dismissed on account of the statement made by the representative of the petitioner while reserving his right to serve a fresh demand notice vide order dated 23.9.2010. On the same day, application was filed by the petitioner for re-calling of the order, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 14.6.2011.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner never authorised his representative to make a statement to get the reference dismissed on account of alleged technical defects in the demand notice while reserving his right to get a fresh demand notice issued. In fact, the petitioner got late while coming to the court on that day due to heavy rains. Immediately when he came to know about the statement made by his representative, he filed the application for re-calling of the order on the same day by getting a legal aid counsel. The same has been arbitrarily dismissed by the Tribunal holding that it cannot review its order. There was no question of any review as the issue had not been decided on merits. Once the permission had been granted for getting a fresh demand notice issued, there was nothing wrong in restoring the earlier proceedings.;