Poonam Srivastav, J. - (1.) HEARD learned respective counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
(2.) 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.
(3.) 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.;