Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) BY this petition for writ validity, propriety and correctness of the order dated 28.5.2004 passed by learned Judge, labour court, Jodhpur is challenged. By the order aforesaid learned labour court dismissed the application preferred by the employer under Rule 22 -A of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1950).
(2.) IN brief the facts of the case are that the labour court, Jodhpur by the award dated 18.11.2002 while answering the reference made to it by the appropriate government under a notification dated 12.6.2000 ordered for reinstatement of workman Sh. Ram Kumar with 40% back -wages. The award was passed ex parte as nobody appeared on behalf of the employer before the Court on 2.5.2001. Accordingly, ex parte proceedings were initiated on 20.11.2001. In the application preferred by the employer under Rule 22 -A of the Rules of 1950 it is stated that a Lawyer was engaged by the employer and due to certain administrative reasons the representative of the employer failed to make contact with the Lawyer and therefore nobody put in appearance before the Court. From perusal of the award as well as the order dated 28.5.2004 it is apparent that on 2.5.2001 nobody was present before the labour court on behalf of the employer, and therefore, on 20.11.2001 an order was passed to initiate ex -parte proceedings. The award was passed on 18.11.2002. Till passing of the award nobody appeared before the labour court or took any step to recall the order dated 20.11.2001. At the first instance an application under Rule 22 -A of the Rules of 1950 was preferred on 19.11.2003 that is after a lapse of about a year from the date of award. The reason given in the application also does not bear any confidence as the negligence on the part of the employer is apparent. The representative of the employer after service of the notice should have appeared before the Court on the first date of hearing i.e. 2.5.2001, what to talk of appearing on first date of hearing no body appeared before the Court even after passing of an order to initiate ex -parte proceedings and a year was taken to move an application to recall the award.
(3.) IN view of it, I do not find any error in the order impugned that labour court warrant interference in the order impugned that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.;