JUVEDA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Narain and Sri Shyam Narain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 11 -7- 1997 and order dated 27-10-2000 as well as the order dated 31-12-2004. It appears that respondent-workman who claimed himself to be a seasonal employee since 1989. He was not permitted to work then he approached the Lower Court under the Industrial Dispute Act and after receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed a reply /written statement and the award was given by the Court by order dated 11-7- 1997 and was published on 13-1 -1998, when the petitioner came to know, he filed an application for recall of the said order that was not being considered then he filed a writ petition for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) Sri S.S, Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already filed written statement and subsequently due to the illness, he could not appear before the Court but in spite of this fact, it was an obligation upon the labour Court to pass speaking and reasoned award on the basis of relevant record. As this has not been done, therefore, the award of the lower Court is liable to be set aside. He has cited various decisions which are being mentioned as under : Management of Tiruttani Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Thiruvalangadu v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras and another, 2002 (1) LLJ page 589.