- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 21.12.2011 passed by Labour Court, Jodhpur (for short 'the labour court' hereinafter), whereby the labour court has answered the reference, while holding that the termination of the services of the respondent-workman on 26.3.2000 was not valid, and 'directed to reinstate the respondent-workman with 50% of back-wages with continuity in service. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 10.4.2013, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 21.12.2011 has also been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the Ministry of Labour made a reference through its notification dated 29.01.2009 to the Labour Court, Pali on the following question: Whether the action of the Management of Superintendent of Post Offices, Sirohi Mandal, Sirohi (Rajasthan) in terminating the services of Shri Dinesh Singh Rao w.e.f. 26.3.2000 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman entitled to?
(2.) On service of notice by the labour court, an advocate had filed 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of the petitioner, however, no reply to the statement of claim was filed. Despite several opportunities, when the reply to the statement of claim was not filed by the petitioner, the opportunity of filing the reply was closed on 2.11.2010 and thereafter the opportunity of filing an affidavit was also closed on 10.10.2011. On 24.11.2011, when none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and on 21.12.2011, the impugned award has been passed by the labour court. The petitioner had preferred an application for setting aside the award on 9.2.2012, however, the said application has also been dismissed by the labour court vide order dated 10.4.2013.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on 10.10.2011, when the matter was listed before the labour court, the counsel for the petitioner took note of the next date of hearing as 24.12.2011 instead of 24.11.2011 and, therefore, none had appeared before the labour court on 24.11.2011. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that mistake committed by the counsel before the labour court was bona fide and the petitioner should have been provided one opportunity to defend before the labour court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the labour court has not taken into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte award in true spirit and passed the order dated 10.04.2013 solely on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce photostat of the diary of the advocate to prove that he had wrongly noted the dated as 24.12.2011 instead of 24.11.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order dated 10.04.2013. as well as the judgment and award dated 21.12.2011 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be provided one more opportunity to defend its case before the labour court.;