JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS intra-court appeal on behalf of employer is directed against order of Single Bench dated 19th February, 2009, whereby writ petition filed by petitioner/appellant against award of Labour Court reinstating the workman with back wages, was disposed off and a compensation of Rs. One Lac, in lieu of reinstatement with back wages, was directed to be paid by employer to the workman. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant did not receive any notice of reference and an ex parte award was passed. Thereafter, an application was filed by appellant for setting aside the ex parte award, which was wrongly dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal. It was further submitted that workman was appointed only for a period of 80 days and there was no violation of any provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appellant was not given an opportunity by way of notice and an ex parte award was passed. Therefore, all facts could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal. He, therefore, submitted that although order of reinstatement has been set aside by Single Bench, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the award of compensation was also not warranted. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that if this Court is not inclined to accept any of the submissions of counsel for the appellant then time may be granted to make the payment of compensation as the Single Bench has directed that in case payment of amount of compensation is not paid within a period of two months, then the respondent workman shall be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum for the period of delay till its payment to the respondent workman. Learned counsel for the respondent/workman supported the impugned order of Single Bench as well as the award passed by the Tribunal. He has submitted that a notice of reference was given to employer, but no one appeared despite service of notice, therefore, there was no illegality in passing the ex parte award. The question of service of notice was examined again by Tribunal while considering the application for setting aside the ex parte award. The learned Single Judge has not interferred with the finding of the Tribunal in this regard. Therefore, there is no scope of interferring with the order of the Single Bench in this intra-court appeal. So far as prayer with regard to grant of time to make payment of compensation is concerned, counsel for respondent has not seriously opposed it. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order of Single Bench. We have also examined the award as well as the order rejecting the application of the appellant for setting aside the ex parte award.
(3.) THE Tribunal while rejecting the application of the appellant for setting aside the ex parte award has observed that employer have not filed any specific affidavit to the effect that notice of reference, which was served upon Om Prakash, Regional Manager, Rajasthan Bank, Bhilwara was not posted there or he was not authorised person. The receipt of notice of reference was available on record. In absence of any specific denial about receipt of notice by employer, the application filed by appellant was dismissed. Learned Single Judge has examined the award as well as the order rejecting the application for setting aside the ex parte award and did not interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. So far as relief to be granted to workman is concerned, learned Single Judge was of the view that in the totality of the circumstances, which will be just and proper to set aside the award of reinstatement of workman and in lieu thereof to award compensation of Rs. One Lac. From the facts mentioned in the award and the order of Single Bench, it appears that workman was appointed in June 1978, the service of workman was terminated in December, 1979. Therefore, it is 33 years old matter. Looking to the period of service of workman, nature of employment and the delay occurred in the present case, we find that reasons assigned by learned Single Judge for awarding the amount of compensation appear to be just and reasonable and the same do not call for any interference by this Court in this intra-court appeal. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the same appears to be just and reasonable. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we think it fit and proper that ends of justice will meet, in case two months' time, as prayed by learned counsel for the appellant, to make the payment of compensation, be granted. ;