(1.) The petitioner State has come against the ex-parte award passed by the ld. Labour court Jaipur dt. 27.09.1994 whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the respondent as well as against the order dt. 14.09.1995 passed by the ld. Labour Court whereby the application moved by the State Government for setting aside ex-parte order under Rule 22 A (2) has been rejected.
(2.) The brief facts for disposal of the present petition are that the respondent was posted as a Home Guard by the directions of the Home Guard Department at S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. He was performing his duties and thereafter, was relieved. Against the relieving order, the respondent No. 1 filed a Civil Suit wherein the application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 was rejected vide order dt. 26.07.1991. It appears that thereafter, the concerned respondent filed conciliation proceedings, upon failure thereof, reference was made to the Labour Court. It is a case of the petitioner State that the award was passed ex-parte against the state and it could not come in the knowledge of the Labour Court that the respondent No.1 is not a workman and was working as a Home Guard and had been appointed in terms of the directions issued by the Home Guard Department. It is also a case of the petitioner-state that as soon as they came to the knowledge of passing of the ex-parte award, they immediately moved application for setting aside ex-parte award, but the same was rejected.
(3.) The plea of the petitioners was that the case file relating to the present case was mixed up with another file of civil suit for temporary injunction, the case could not have been attended. The ld. Labour Court has, however, not accepted such a plea and has rejected the application mainly on the ground that the application has been moved with a delay of more than 15 days.