TALUKA DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Vs. DHURABHAI VIRABHAI VANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. M.R. Shah for the petitioners in this group of petitions and Mr. J.D. Ajmera as well as Mr. B.M. Mangukia for the respondents workmen in these group of petitions.

(2.) The respondents herein were working with the petitioner and their services were terminated in the year 1998 on 26/07/1988 and, therefore, they raised industrial dispute before the labour court Godhra by filing separate reference. Before the labour court, the petitioner was not remaining present in these references and, therefore, the labour court made an exparte award dated 8/07/1993 and has, thereby, granted reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages with interim period. Thereafter, for setting aside such an ex parte award, the petitioners moved applications before the labour court under Rule 26-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (Gujarat) Rules 1966. Said applications preferred by the petitioner before the labour court were objected by the respondent workmen. Thereafter, said applications under rule 26-A of the said Rules were dismissed by the labour court for default in absence of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner filed applications for restoration of those applications under rule 26-A of the said Rules by filing Misc. Application No. 48 of 1994 to 54 of 1994 wherein the labour court has passed order dated 9/12/1997 and has rejected the said applications no. 48 of 1994 to 54 of 1994 with cost of Rs.250.00 in each of the applications.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Shah appearing for the petitioner in this group of petitions has submitted that initially an ex parte award was made by the labour court in the references in absence of the petitioner and, therefore, as stated earlier, applications under rule 26-A of the said Rules were moved by the petitioner before the labour court for setting aside the ex parte award which were rejected by the labour court in absence of the petitioner. Thereafter,the petitioner has filed miscellaneous application nos. 48 of 1994 to 54 of 1994 for restoration of such applications which were filed for setting aside ane x parte award. Said application which was filed by the petitioner for restorationo f the earlier application has been rejected by the labour court on the ground that there is no provision for restoration under the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 that once application for setting aside the ex parte award is dismissed for default in absence of the petitioner, then, such applications cannot be restored as there is no provision under the Rules and, therefore, the labour court has rejected all these applications for restoration of the earlier applications which were dismissed for default. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. M.R.Shah has relied upon the decision of the apex court in case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. versus The Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others reported in AIR 1981 SC 606 and has submitted that in view of the principles laid down by the apex court in the aforesaid decision, the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for in these miscellaneous applications.