SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. GHANSHYAM POPATLAL GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard leaned AGP Mr.L.B.Dabhi on behalf of the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.P.H.Pathak for the respondent. In the present petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Misc. Application No.8 of 1995 in Reference No.42 of 1991 dated 4/7/1995. The Labour Court has passed award in Reference No.42 of 1991 dated 10/11/1994. The said award is ex parte against the petitioner. The Labour Court, Kalol has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages and consequential benefits. Against the said ex parte order, Misc. Application No.8 of 1995 was filed by the petitioner which has been decided by the Labour Court, Kalol wherein the Labour Court, Kalol has rejected the said application on 4/7/1995. This Court by order dated 11/10/1995 while issuing Rule, no stay was granted against the reinstatement but the back wages has been stayed. In view of the order passed by this Court on 11/10/1995, the respondent workman concerned has been reinstated in service by the petitioner in the year 1995. The workman concerned is in service since more than ten years.

(2.) The learned AGP Mr.Dabhi submitted that the Labour Court, Kalol has committed gross error in setting aside ex parte award. He submitted that on merits, petitioner having good case because workman was appointed without following recruitment procedure and on temporary basis. He also submitted that no reasonable opportunity was given by the Labour Court before passing award against the petitioner. He also submitted that the delay of not more than three months even though same has not been condoned by the Labour Court without giving any cogent reason in support of the petition, additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner and along with additional affidavit, certain documents are produced on record by the petitioner. He also submitted that advocate was engaged by the petitioner and in some of occasions, date was obtained by the advocate but because of the advocate not remained present, the Labour Court, Kalol has passed ex parte order. Therefore, he submitted that petitioner having good case on merits, therefore, order passed by the Labour Court in Misc. Application to be set aside.

(3.) The learned advocate Mr.Pathak appearing for the respondent submitted that before the Labour Court, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner but not availed by them. Though advocate was engaged, even though advocate was not remained present. Therefore, after giving various opportunities to the petitioner, ultimately the Labour Court has rightly passed ex parte order. He also submitted that in pursuance to the ex parte order, the workman is already reinstated in service and he is working for about ten years, then now to disturb the award, which amounts to miscarriage of justice. He also submitted that Labour Court while dealing with the application, for setting aside the ex parte order, given cogent reason. He also submitted that petitioner has made incorrect statement before the Labour Court that no notice was served by them from the Labour Court. The said statement is not correct. That aspect has been discussed by the Labour Court in para 6. Therefore, he submitted that workman remained out of employment for more than four years because pendency of dispute which was referred in the year 1991. Therefore, no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner to set aside the ex parte order. Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner.