- (1.) The petitioner which is a Cooperative Marketing Society registered under Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1956 (for short, "the Societies Act') has challenged the Award dated 22.12.97 (Ann.4) passed by the Judge Labour Court, Jaipur, in LCR No. 18/96, whereby the Labour Court's order rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner Management for recalling the ex-parte order has been rejected under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.
(2.) The facts, which are relevant for deciding the instant petition, briefly stated, are that the respondent No. 2 workman had presented a statement of claim contending therein that his appointment was made with effect from 1.2.1983 by the Select Committee and he had faithfully and diligently discharged his duties on the post of Salesman but his services were terminated with effect from 3.8.1994. His further contention is that for the period of 1.3.93 to 3.8.94 he was not paid his salary dues nor he was served with any notice prior to the impugned action. He was also not paid any retrenchment compensation. "Hence the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act") have been violated. His further case was that he had worked for a period of more than 240 days against the calendar year and the management had given fresh appointment to some other candidates by ignoring petitioner's candidature, hence there was also violation of 25-G of the Act,
(3.) It is pertinent to mention in the back drop of events that the learned Tribunal has recorded significant finding against the petitioner-Samiti in para 3, wherein it has been recorded that despite the services upon Samiti on 5th July, 1996, the petitioner had voluntarily absented before the learned Tribunal when the case was called, consequent to which ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him on 3.9.97. Since there was violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, the learned Tribunal had observed in the impugned Award that there was no reason or justification to disbelieve the additional affidavit filed in support of claim petition by the workman, therefore, he was entitled to salary in lieu of notice in accordance with the rules.;