CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned ex-parte award dated 27. 7. 93 (Annex. 3) and the order dated 3. 6. 2000 (Annx. 5), by which the application under rule 22-A of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 (for short, "the Rules, 1958") for recalling the ex-parte award has been rejected.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Appropriate Government made a reference, vide order dated 9. 8. 92: whether the removal of the respondent-workman with effect from 1. 6. 89 was in accordance with law and if not, to what relief he was entitled to. THE workman had claimed that he had continuously worked from 4. 4. 88 to 31. 5. 89 and completed 240 days in one calendar year if counted backward from the date of termination; his evidence had be terminated without complying with the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act" ). THE learned Labour Court recorded the finding that inspite of notice u/sec. 10-B which was received by the present petitioner-employer on 29. 10. 92, they did not appear nor did they file any counter-claim, thus, vide order dated 22. 2. 93, they were proceeded ex-parte and after considering the evidence led by the respondent-workman, the Award dated 27. 7. 93 was passed holding that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year counting backward from the date of termination and the same was in flagrant violation of the provisions of Sec. 25-F of the Act. THE relief of continuity of service with full back wages was awarded. THE petitioners filed an application on 20. 4. 95 under rule 22-A of the Rules, 1958 to recall the ex-parte order contending that it came to their knowledge only on 5. 4. 95. The application was heard and the labour Court recorded the finding of facts that the copy of the claim was sent by registered post which was received by the applicant-petitioners but they did not enter appearance. Moreso, the notice u/sec. 29 of the Act sent by the Labour Commissioner, jaipur to the appellant-petitioners was received by them on 22. 6. 94. It was evident from their own registers as an entry had been made at Serial No. 1641 dated 22. 6. 94 and further entry has been made at Serial No. 4628 dated 24. 11. 94 therein. Therefore, as the applicants filed to furnish any explanation why the application u/sec. 22-A could not be filed on coming to know about the ex-parte Award on 22. 6. 94 and 24. 11. 94, he application for recalling the ex-parte Award has been rejected. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners could not furnish any explanation as if the applicants came to know about the Award on 22. 6. 94 itself, what was the occasion for them to wait for about one one year and file the application on 20. 4. 95. Inspite of being repeated asked, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out whether the Department has initiated any action against any of its employees for ommission on their part, nor it is suggested that the Department is willing to proceed, I am not inclined to interfere with the Award and the order impugned in a limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Even on the issue of full back wages, there is no force in the arguments of petitioner's counsel. In Vikramaditya Pandey vs. Industrial Tribunal & Anr. (1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issued of over-riding effect of the provisions of the Act, 1947 and observed that the provisions will over-ride and in case the termination is found to be illegal, relief of reinstatement should be granted with full back wages only the employer specifically pleads and established that there were special circumstances which warranted either non-instatement or non-payment of back wages. The Court observed as under:- "the appellant ought to have been ordered to be reinstated in service were illegally terminated in the post he was holding including its nature. Ordinarily, once the termination of service of an employees is held to be wrongful or illegal normally relief of reinstatement with full back wages shall be available to an employee. It is open to the employer to specifically plead and establish that there were special circumstances which warranted either non-reinstatement or non-payment of back wages. However, the Court has a power to consider the facts and circumstances of the each case and award the relief but the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act have an over-riding effect on other Labour Laws. " In the instant case as the award remained ex parte and the application for recalling the order has been rejected, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned award. Hence, the petition is dismissed. . ;