RAMNIKLAL NANALAL BHANANI Vs. SAHDEVSINH TIRATHSINH VALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. D.V.Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondent waives notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. At the request of the learned advocates for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.

(2.) In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 11.06.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No.385 of 1997 as also the order dated 8.7.2004 passed by the same Court in Misc. Application No. 47 of 2002. It is the case of the petitioner that the award dated 11.06.2002 was passed ex-parte as the petitioner could not remain present nor his representative could appear for valid reasons. Upon coming to know about the passing of the award, the petitioner moved restoration application being Misc. Application No.47 of 2002 before the Labour Court, Bhavnagar. However, the same also came to be rejected by the order dated 08.07.2004.

(3.) Learned advocate Shri Sunil Patel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court ought not to have decided the reference ex-parte and at any rate when the petitioner filed application for setting aside the ex-parte award, the sane ought to have been granted. He submits that the petitioner had made out valid grounds for allowing the Misc. Application for setting aside the ex- parte award. He, therefore, submits that the impugned award and the order are required to be set aside and the matter nay be remanded to the Labour Court for considering on merits. He submits that the question whether the respondent was a workman or not has not been gone into by the Labour Court.