Arun Madan, J. - (1.) The case of the petitioner in short is that he was appointed on daily wage basis by the Additional Collector (Development) District Alwar Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan by order dated 2.12.1985. After having rendered service for about an year, his services were terminated by a verbal order dated 4.12.1986 of the Appointing Authority. Consequent to his termination, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act of 1947') before the Conciliation "Officer. The Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report on 6.6.1987 since he was unable to resolve the dispute. Thereafter, the matter was referred by the State Govt, under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Act to the Labour court and accordingly, the case was registered as LCR No. 102/88 and notices were issued to the respondents. On 30.8.1989, respondent No. 3 instead of appearing before the Labour Court and contesting the case, sent a telegraphic communication to the Labour Court Bharatpur for adjournment and accordingly, the case was adjourned to 19.10.1989.
(2.) The State Government referred the dispute by having resort to the provisions of Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Act to the Labour Court and accordingly case was registered and notices were issued to the respondents. Thereafter the proceedings were held from time to time after the service of notices on the respondents. However on 30.8.89 by a telegraphic communication respondent No. 3 conveyed to the Labour Court, Bharatpur its request to grant adjournment and the case was accordingly adjourned to 19.10.89 as stated here in above when the controversy pertaining to the ex-parte proceedings arose between the parties. On the said date, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner for the reason that there was a lawyers strike. Though it was expected that the department should have deputed its representative to appear for the least purpose of seeking adjournment. Even on the adjourned date of hearing i.e. 21.12.89 no one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3 and thereafter also on subsequent dates of hearing. Since the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Bharatpur was on leave on 21.12.89, the case was adjourned to 1.2.90 and thereafter again to 15.3.90. It is to be noted that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner made his appearance on all the aforesaid dates but conspicuously enough respondent No. 3 had defaulted in appearing before the Court or through his representatives even on the adjourned dates of hearing. If respondent No. 3 was busy on account of administrative duties, there appears no justification in that regard as to why the officer-in-charge of respondent No. 3 had failed to attend the proceedings, which remain unexplained. Merely because a telegraphic message was sent by respondent No. 3 seeking adjournment for a particular date on 30.8.89 (Ann. 2) on the ground that he was not in a position to attend the court and hence the matter may be adjourned to some other date itself is no ground to absolve the responsibility of respondent No. 3 to appear before the court. It is not expected of the Labour Court to convey a party to the proceedings even if it happens to be a Government functionary like the Additional Collector (Development, Rural Agency) as in the instant case, by way of a personal communication regarding adjourned date of hearing.
(3.) Be that as it may, the aforesaid approach was not expected of respondent No. 3 since rather the responsibility was fully left on its representative to attend the case even on the adjourned dates of hearing, more particularly, on 5.4.90 when the matter was decided ex parte and an Award had been passed against the respondents.;