KESHOTE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) ADMIT. Mr. Amin Ali has already put appearance for the contesting respondent. So far as respondent No. 2 is concerned it is neither necessary nor proper party to this petition, its name is deleted. Office to put an endorsement to that extent in the cause title. The matter is complete. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29. 7. 98 of the Labour Court, Bharatpur in LCR No. 59/96. Under the impugned order in this petition the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 8. 1. 98 of the petitioner was came to be rejected. On 8. 1. 98 the Labour Court, Bharatpur has closed the right of the petitioner to file the reply to the statement of claim in the matter. The facts of the case and the grounds raised to challenge this order in the petition need not be given in detail as the learned counsel for the contesting respondent workman has no objection in case the petitioners are given one more opportunity to file the reply to the statement of claim and contest the reference on merits before the Labour Court on payment of cost to the respondent. The respondent workman raised an industrial dispute re-the termination of his services by the petitioner and that has been referred for adjudication by the State Government to the Labour Court. It is not in dispute that (1) notice of this reference was received by the petitioners on 25. 7. 96 with the copy of statement of claim of the respondent workman; (2) proposals were sent to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Jaipur vide letter No. 6117 dated 9. 8. 1996 for appointment of Range Officer, Gangapur City as Officer Incharge; (3) the District Collector, Bharatpur was requested by letter dt. 9. 8. 1996 for appointment of Range Officer, Gangapur City as Officer Incharge; (3) the District Collector, Bharatpur was requested by letter dt. 9. 8. 1996 for appointment of panel lawyer. The Range Officer, Bharatpur was instructed by letter dated 12. 8. 1996 to appear in the Court; (4) Ashok Verma was appointed as panel lawyer by the District Collector vide his order dated 16. 8. 1996 and the Chief Conservator of Forest by his order dated 6. 9. 1996 appointed the Range Officer, Gangapur City as Officer Incharge.
(3.) FROM 6. 9. 96 to 8. 1. 98 more than sufficient time was given to the petitioners and once an opportunity has also been given on cost to file the reply to the statement of claim. The same has not been filed. Having gona through the contents of the petition and the order impugned therein I am satisfied that the petitioner have failed to make out any ground to grant them any further indulgence in the matter. On merits the petitioners have no case but as the counsel for the contesting respondent workman has given his consent for giving the petitioners one more opportunity to contest the matter on merits the petition may not be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent contesting workman submitted that the costs are awarded under two heads. One is the cost for allowing the petitioners an opportunity to contest the reference on merits and secondly the cost of this petition. It is submitted that the respondent workman is a poor person. He has been removed from the service by the petitioner. He is a jobless person and has no money to contest this litigation but after receipt of the notice of this petition as it is the matter pertains to his livelihood he has to engage an Advocate to contest the matter. In this litigation he has spent Rs. 3500/- towards the expenses thereof. Learned counsel for the respondent workman has submitted that the workman has paid to him an amount of Rs. 3500/- for providing him his professional services in this matter. So far as cost for the grant of the liberty to the petitioners to contest the reference on merits is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent workman leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court. ;