MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. KULWANT KUMAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case.

(2.) In our opinion, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands.

(3.) The entire claim in the writ petition is based on the plea that the petitioners did not receive any notice with regard to the pendency of the Industrial Dispute/Reference. The record shows that the dispute was referred by way of reference No. 14 of 1989 on (sic)06.1988. On 10.11.1988, ex parte proceedings were ordered as the Municipal Committee did not appear. On 1 4.12.1988, an earlier award was passed ex parte against the Municipal Committee. On 09.07.1990, on an application made by the Municipal Committee, the ex -parte award was set aside and the reference was re -numbered. On 28.11.1990, the written statement was filed on behalf of the Municipal Committee signed by their Legal Assistant. Thereafter, the Municipal Committee did not produce any evidence and also did not participate in the proceedings before the Labour Court. Again on 06.10.1994, ex -parte award was passed against the Municipal Committee which was published in the Gazette at pages 238 -239 on 10.09.1995. On 14.04.1997, the Municipal Committee filed an application for setting aside the ex -parte award.