ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR,J. - (1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the award dated 10th February, 1984 of the Labour Court, Bikaner and it has been prayed that the award may be quashed. The petitioner is a registered Co -operative Society, known as Rawla Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Rawla, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (here in after referred as the petitioner society). The Additional Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies was appointed as Administrator of the Society. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of the Society. He was initially appointed for a period of two months on temporary basis, which he joined on 3rd March, 1980. His appointment was extended from time to time but no extension was granted after 11th November, 1980. He was again re -employed by the Society from 21st May, 1981 till 3rd October, 1981 when a show cause notice was served on him proposing to terminate his services. The respondent No. 3 did not submit any reply and his services were terminated by the Additional Assistant Registrar vide order dated 24th October, 1981 vide Annexure -2. The respondent No. 3 moved the Authorised Officer (under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1952), Sri Ganganagar complaining against the order of termination of service dated 24th October, 1981 and the Authorised Officer however rejected his application. Matter was also referred to the Conciliation Officer and he also gave failure report. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 moved the Labour Department of the State Government and a reference was made under the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court that whether the termination of the respondent No. 3 was well founded or not. The Labour Court after hearing the respondent No. 3 passed an exparte order becaus'e no body from the petitioner society appeared. It was held by the Labour Court that the Non -petitioner has been found guilty without holding a proper enquiry, therefore it is in the breach of the principles of, natural justice. It was further held that the respondent No. 3 has completed 240 days therefore he is entitled for the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court ultimately set aside the order of termination dated 24th October, 1981 and passed the order of reinstatment with back wages. It is this order which has been challenged by filing this writ petition by the petitioner society.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner society had no notice, therefore they could not appear and defend the matter. I am afraid the submission of the learned Counsel is without any basis. In fact the clerk from the management side came on 14th March, 1983 and he was supplied with the statement of claim and he was informed about the next date, which was fixed for 4th April, 1983, but did not body appear on 4th April, 1983 before the Labour Court therefore it was decided to proceed exparte. But nothing transpired on successive dates because of transfer of the Presiding Officer and ultimately on 17th January, 1984 exparte evidence of the respondent No. 3 was recorded. The evidence of the respondent No. 3 was completed on that very day and order was announced thereafter no body from the management side ever tried to find out the fate of the case. It was held that the respondent No. 3's services cannot be terminated without following the proper procedure of enquiry. I have examined both the findings given by the Labour Court and I think the findings given by the Labour Court appear to be correct because it has not been pointed out by the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 was ever charge sheeted before terminating his services. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner has not completed 240 days cm the date of termination. Thus, I do not find any error warranting interference by this court in the findings of the Labour Court. Mr. Mathur lastly submitted that since the petitioner is guilty of delay therefore he should not be given back wages and in this connection he has relied upon a case of this Court in D.B Civil Special Appeal No. 257 of 1983, Kishan Lal v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. decided on September 16, 1985. It is true that the petitioner's termination was effected on 24th October, 1981 and reference was made on 17th January, 1983 but it has not been pointed out that when the conciliation proceedings failed and whether there was any delay on the part of the respondent No. 3 to approach the State Government for making reference to the Labour Court. Unless it is shown that the conciliation proceedings failed and the State Government was not approached in time, it would not be possible to hold the respondent No. 3 guilty of delay to deny him the back wages. For ought we know that the petitioner has approached the State Government and the matter has remained pending with the State Government for making reference, for that the respondent No. 3 cannot be held guilty of laches so as to deny him the benefit of back wages. In the case which has been cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner a clear finding was recorded that the petitioner in that case was guilty of latches, therefore he was denied the suspension allowances. But the same is not the case here.
(3.) THUS , in the result I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed. No order as to costs.;