Sunil Garg, J. - (1.) This writ petition under s 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 10.7.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned ex-parte judgment and award dated 14.6.2000 (Annex.P/4) passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 1) by which he on a reference made by the Government of Rajasthan held that termination of services of the respondent No. 2 Mahipal Singh with effect from 6.11.1992 was not proper and valid and thus, ordered reinstatement of respondent No. 2 and also awarded 50% back wages till he was reinstated, be quashed and set aside.
(2.) The case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows:- Through Notification dated 8th September, 1999, the Labour Department of the Government of Rajasthan made a reference to the learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 1) to the effect whether the termination of the services of the respondent No. 2 Mahipal Singh with effect from 6.11.1992 was proper and valid and on receipt of that reference, the respondent No. 1 learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar registered the case being No. 71/99 and issued notices to the petitioners and respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 Mahipal Singh through application (Annex.P/1) filed his claim before the respondent No. 1 learned Labour Court stating inter-alia that he was appointed as Assistant Secretary by the petitioners on 17.10.1989 and since his appointment, he worked continuously on that post upto 6.11.1992, but on 6.11.1992 his services were terminated orally by the petitioners and before terminating his services, compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the ID Act") was not made and, therefore, action of the petitioners terminating the services of the respondent No. 2 was wholly illegal and unjustified. Hence, it was prayed that the order terminating his service w.e.f. 6.11.1992 be quashed and set aside and he be reinstated in service. The petitioners appeared before the respondent No. 1 learned Labour Court on 9.12.1999 through Nand Kishore Sharma, Secretary, Gram Panchayat Sardargarh and thereafter, the learned Labour Court fixed the case for 25.3.2000, but on that day, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioners and, therefore, the learned Labour Court ordered ex-parte proceedings against the petitioners. The learned Labour Court framed three issues and after recording the evidence of the respondent No. 2, passed the impugned ex-parte judgment and award dated 14.6.2000 (Annex.P/4) in the manner as indicated above holding inter-alia:- (i) That the respondent No. 2 before 6.11.1992 had worked in the employment of the petitioners for more than 240 days. (ii) That termination of services of the respondent No. 2 amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the ID Act. (iii) That before terminating the services of the respondent No. 2, the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act were not followed. (iv) That the termination of services of the respondent No. 2 with effect from 6.11.1992 was bad in law. Aggrieved from the said ex-parte judgment and award (Annex.P/4) dated 14.6.2000 passed by the learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar, the petitioners have directly approached this Court Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India instead of going first before the learned Labour Court for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and award (Annex. P/4).
(3.) In this writ petition, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner:- (i) That it was wrong to say that the services of the respondent No. 2 were orally terminated by the petitioners, but the fact is that the respondent No. 2 himself voluntarily left the job of the petitioners and in these circumstances, no question of retrenchment arises. Hence, the impugned judgment and award Annex. P/4 passed by the learned Labour Court are wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. (ii) That on point of passing of ex-parte judgment and award (Annex.P/4), it was submitted that the case was listed on 9.12.1999 and on that day, the case was ordered to be fixed for 31.1.2000 and since on that day, there was strike, the case was ordered to be listed on 25.3.2000 and the petitioners were never informed about the date of 25.3.2000, when ex-parte proceedings were ordered against them and, thereafter, the case was fixed for 14.6.2000 when the impugned ex-parte, judgment and award were passed and since petitioner were not informed that ex-parte proceedings were ordered against them on 25.3.2000 and also not informed about the date of 14.6.2000, therefore, the order dated 25.3.2000 ordering ex-parte proceedings against the petitioners and ex-parte impugned judgment and award (Annex.P/4) passed by the learned Labour Court cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside. ;