MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BHATINDA Vs. LABOUR COURT, BHATINDA. ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application of the petitioner dated 20.9.1990, Annexure P-5 to the petition, albeit praying for setting aside the ex parte proceedings against the petitioner has not been decided when in fact an ex parte award has been given against the Municiapl Committee petitioner.

(2.) The skeletal facts needed to determine the controversy in hand are that the petitioner was directed to be proceeded against ex parte on 20th September, 1990. On the same very day the petitioner applied for setting aside the ex parte order, inter alia, justifying the absence. It is averred that the petitioner was told that the date in the application shall be conveyed to the petitioner later on, but in fact, no date was ever conveyed to the petitioner by the respondent No. 1, rather the authority decided the case ex parte on 23.10.1990, after recording the evidence of the workman. The petitioner again preferred an application for setting aside the award dated 23rd October, 1990, bringing all the facts to the notice of the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court inter alia, holding that since an application for setting aside the award had been made after the publication of the award in the Punjab Govt. Gazette, the application for setting aside the award was not maintainable.

(3.) The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 is to the effect that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to pursue the application made for setting aside the ex parte proceedings and this question of making the earlier application before the Labour Court was lever raised. Consequently, the impugned award requires no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. We are of the considered view that in view of the admitted fact that the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings having been made on the same day on which the ex parte proceedings were ordered, and the application having not been decided even at the time of disposal of the case on merit. The fact that the question was not raised before the Labour Court cannot be sustained, as the petitioner has specifically mentioned in the replication dated 23.3.1991 that his application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings still has not been decided. There is no gain saying that the petitioner was not granted a reasonable opportunity to defend his case.