- (1.) HEARD learned respective counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the award dated 20th January, 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2), Dhanbad in Reference No. 155 of 2000 was an ex parte award without sufficient notice to the management. An application for recall for the ex parte award was made and the same has been rejected vide order 19th January, 2006 after recording a finding that inspite of issuance of notice for causing appearance, the management failed to appear on the date fixed, consequently it was directed that ex parte hearing, per provision of Rule 9 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 shall go on and final award was given. The recall application was, however, rejected with an observation that the tribunal considered and was of a firm opinion that the management kept their eyes closed and did not consider it necessary to respond inspite of issuance of notice by registered post.
(2.) I have gone through the impugned order, I have not been able to come across any such finding that valid service was effected on the management legally and the management, inspite of service of notice, intentionally and deliberately avoided to appear before the Labour Court. The lower court records was called for. Counsel appearing for the workmen-respondent was not able to point out anything to substantiate that the notice was effected on the management and despite sufficient notice, the petitioner avoided appearance. In absence of a specific finding, the award and rejection or the recall application is without any justification. Without going into the merits or any legalities or illegalities of question involved, I am of the opinion, and as agreed between the respective counsel, since counter affidavit has already been filed, the writ petition can be decided finally as there will be no use to keep the matter pending. It has already taken a very long time without any rhyme or reason, only on the technical question whether service was sufficient or not. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 19th January, 2006 passed by the Tribunal in Misc. Appeal No. 8 of 2005 (Annexure 4) whereby the management made a request for rehearing of Reference No. 155 of 2000, was rejected and the ex parte award dated 20th January, 2005, is set at naught. The direction to the workman to confirm his regularisation in Clerical Grade III as Cap Lamp Issue Clerk with effect from the date of raising industrial dispute and the payment of full back wages with other consequential relief from that date is also quashed.
(3.) SINCE the matter has already been lingered, I am of the opinion that no further delay be caused, the parties will appear before the tribunal on any date fixed after 15th January, 2011 and a date will be given to the respective parties to appear and on that date, both the parties shall be given opportunity of hearing and the matter will be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of their appearance. No further delay or unnecessary adjournments will be allowed by any of the parties. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.;