MISRA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner-M/s Packplast Industries, has filed both these writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Labour Court, Kota which has refused to set aside the Ex-parte award passed in favour of the petitioner determining the question that the petitioner-industry was legally bound to pay Rs, 21,000/- by way of over-time allowance to the workman-respondent No. 1 as he had discharged 12 hours of duty daily by way of over-time. THE petitioner had duly been served with a show cause notice to appear before the Labour Court which had to adjudicate upon the dispute but the petitioner-industry failed to appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice which is admitted by the petitioner-industry. THE Labour Court, therefore, passed an ex-parte award in favour of respondent- workman on 3. 7. 98. THE petitioner-industry thereafter filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte award on 18. 11. 99 wherein it was stated that the notice although was served on the employee of the petitioner-industry, he had left the job due to which the matter could not be contested before the court. THE Labour Court however, refused to set aside the ex-parte award as it was concluded by the learned Judge of the Labour Court that the petitioner-industry had not disclosed any reason much less sufficient in order to impress upon the Labour Court to set aside the ex-parte award. the notice having been duly served on the petitioner-industry it was held that the ex-parte award which determined Rs. 21,000/- only for payment by way of over-time wages to the respondent-workman was not fit to be set aside or recalled. THEse writ petitions have challenged the order dated 2. 11. 2000 passed by the Labour Court, Kota which has refused to set aside the impugned order.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, assailing the order refusing to set aside the exparte award of the Labour Court, submitted that the respondent-workman had already entered into a settlement/compromise with the petitioner-industry who had been paid the entire amount on 181. 94 in regard to his wages towards over-time duty and for this purpose he had also filed an affidavit disclosing this fact and since no amount was payable by the petitioner-industry the exparte award should be set aside by this court as also the order refusing to set aside the exparte award. The counsel for the respondent-workman however has not admitted the affidavit filed by the management of the petitioner- industry but even if it were to be admitted, the question arises as to whether the High Court while considering the order refusing to set aside the exparte award can permit the employer to argue the matter on merit when the same was never put to test before the original Court as the employer had failed to appear. Thus while considering the limited question as to whether the Labour Court was justified in refusing to set aside the exparte award, this court cannot permit the petitioner-industry to address the court on the merits of the case which was adjudicated upon by the Labour Court for even if the petitioner-industry had paid the amount towards wages, it was duty bound to appear before the Labour Court and apprise it about the settlement which had taken place in which case the workman would have got the opportunity to contest the plea regarding receipt of payment so that the case of the petitioner-industry that it had already paid the payment could also have been gone into but the petitioner-industry having not respondent to the notice of the Labour Court to appear in the case, it is difficult for this Court to find fault with the order of the Labour Court which had refused to set aside the exparte award. Besides this, the petitioner-industry inspite of the exparte award passed against it failed to file even an application for setting abide the exparte award for almost an year for which there is no jurisdiction. The attitude of the petitioner-industry therefore appears to be of utter defiance against the award of the labour Court which cannot be held to be a happy position. The impugned order thus cannot be held to be suffering from any legal infirmity so as to give a cause for this court to interfere with the same. At this juncture, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-industry filed the application for setting aside the exparte award within one month of the knowledge of the notice served upon him for compliance of the exparte award and hence the delay of almost one year is not fit to the taken into account. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner also has no force in my opinion as once the petitioner-industry received the notice from the labour court regarding reference of the dispute, it was also expected to how of passing of the ex- parte award but the petitioner-industry did not appear to be interested in making the payment at all and woke-up from its slumber only when it was given the notice to comply the award by making the payment. Hence this argument is also rejected. Counsel for the petitioner last of all submitted that the exparte impugned award having been stayed by this Court on 28. 3. 2001 which is in existence till today, the interest on the amount of the award should not be held payable to the respondent- workman. To this extent the argument appears to be reasonable for although the petitioner had moved this court for setting aside the exparte award and the High Court considered it appropriate to stay the entire exparte award, the interest which has accrued during this period on the amount determined by the Labour Court cannot be held payable by the petitioner-industry to the respondent-workman as the amount clearly accused towards interest on account of pendency of the dispute in this Court and hence the petitioner-industry should to be saddled with this liability. The position perhaps would have different if no order of stay had been operating in favour of the petitioner employer. Hence it his held that the amount of interest accruing from 28. 3. 2001 up to this date that is 26. 5. 2003 shall not be payable to the respondent-workman. As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion this writ petition is dismissed subject to waiver of interest amount for the period noted hereinbefore. It is expected of the petitioner-employee to comply the award expeditiously. . ;