RAJULA NAGARPALIKA Vs. PANKAJKUMAR PRATAPARI CHUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court against the Award dated 17.8.2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Complaint (IT) No. 14 of 2002 in Misc. Application No. 17 of 2005. The petitioner has also challenged an order dated 29.1.2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Misc. Civil Application No. 17 of 2005 in Complaint (IT) No. 14/2002. By above referred Award dated 17.8.2005, the Industrial Tribunal directed the present petitioner No. 4 to reinstate the respondent on his original post and to pay him wages an average salary drawn by him during 12 months preceding the date of his termination. The said award dated 17.8.2005 was passed ex parte. Aggrieved by the said order, above referred Misc. Application No. 17 of 2005 was preferred with a prayer that the ex parte award may be set aside and the proceedings of the complaint may be restored. After considering the submission of present petition, Industrial Tribunal rejected the said application.

(2.) MR . Desai, learned advocate submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has committed serious error of law and jurisdiction in passing ex parte award and in rejecting Misc. Application. He submitted that the petitioner had engaged advocate to represent its case before the Tribunal, however, the petitioner's advocate came to be appointed as Judge of the Fast Track Court and the petitioner could not maintain the follow up of the proceedings and then the complaint came to be decided ex parte. He submitted that considering the said aspect, Misc. Application with a prayer for restoration of proceedings ought to have been allowed.

(3.) UPON hearing Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for respondent and upon considering the material on record, it appears that the petitioner had not even cared to file written statement in the complaint proceedings for span of almost three years inasmuch as the complaint has been filed around April, 2002, whereas the award came to be passed in August, 2005. In interregnum, the petitioner did not care to file written s statement. Even if the excuse of the petitioner that he could not keep the track of the matter after the advocate was appointed as Judge is to be accepted, then also there is no explanation for the period from April, 2002 untill the petitioner's advocate came to be appointed as a Judge in Fast Track Court and the information came to be conveyed to the petitioner by the advocate's father in April, 2004. In this view of the matter, the stage of filing written statement was ordered to be closed by the learned Tribunal. The petitioner continued to ignore the proceedings. It has come on record that the petitioner Nagarpalika was informed in April, 2004 by father of the advocate about the advocate's appointment as Judge in Fast Track Court. The impugned award came to be passed almost after 14 months after the said intimation. When the intimation was given by the advocate's father, which factual aspect has come out from the evidence on record, there was no base or justification for the petitioner to continue to ignore the proceedings and it is not justified on the part of the petitioner to find fault with the Tribunal for passing an ex parte award.