STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BHANWAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the State of Rajasthan and the Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan Jaipur against the order dated 29th August, 1979 rejecting the application of the petitioners for setting aside the exparte award. It is not in dispute that the date of appearance was 8 3. 1979. On this date the State or respondent No. 2 Assistant Engineer or its authorised representative did not appear. The case was then adjourned on 3,5. 1979 for 19. 6. 1979 and on that date also the authorised representative of the petitioner did not appear, although on 3. 5. 1979 an unauthorised person was present according to the application of the petitioners for setting aside exparte order, the order for proceeding exparte was, therefore, passed on 3. 5. 1979. No efforts were made by the petitioners to move application for setting aside ex-parte order after this upto 19. 6. 1979 when the case was fixed up for further proceedings.

(2.) ON 19. 6. 1979 none appeared and therefore, the proceedings were taken and on 20. 6. 1979 award was given.

(3.) THE Labour Court has already observed that by remaining absent continuously on number of hearing the State function arise have shown scant regard for the Labour Court. To this I have to add that by filing writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have only burdened the State Exchequer unnecessarily. Instead of filing such writ application, the State should have probed into the matter of negligence of the officers concerned who did not attend be Labour Court hearing on three subsequent dates and would have considered whether they can be saddled with the liability, which have been fastened on the State. That is all the more necessary when in a social welfare legislation and in the Labour Court where a workman comes for relief, is the subject matter of litigation. THE relief which should have given by the State itself was ultimately given by the Labour Court and therefore, there was no occas-sion to challenge it before this Court.