MUNICIPAL BOARD KAMAN Vs. JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter comes up on an application for vacation of ex- parte interim order dated 6.3.2012 passed by this Court.

(2.) Heard, Mr.B.K. Sharma counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.R. Surana Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Sanjay Yadav for the respondent- applicant.

(3.) Mr.S.R. Surana submitted that in terms of Rule 22-A of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1958'), an application for setting aside an ex-parte award by the Labour Court could have been filed only within 15 days of its passing. Mr.S.R. Surana submitted that thereafter in terms of sub rule 2 of Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1958, the Labour Court could in its discretion extend the time for filing of an application for setting aside the ex-parte award by a further 15 days. Mr.S.R. Surana submitted that an application for setting aside of ex-parte award of the Labour Court cannot be filed and is not maintainable subsequent to the special limitation prescribed therefore under Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1958. He submitted that in the instant case the application for setting aside of ex-parte award dated 31.8.2001 was filed by the petitioner on 12.8.2002 after a period of over 11 months. The said application was itself incompetent. Aside of the aforesaid fact for whatever its worth the filing was, the application was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act albeit the applicant's case is that the Limitation Act, 1963 did not attract to application filed under Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1958. Mr.S.R. Surana on merits submitted that admittedly from the facts of the case before the Labour Court the summons on the claim laid by the respondent-applicant-workman before the Labour Court, Bharatpur was served by a registered post on the petitioner on or before 8.1.2001. In fact the petitioner so admits in his application itself filed under Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1958. Mr.S.R. Surana submitted that subsequent to service of summons on the petitioner, he yet did not appear before the Labour Court at any subsequent time on various dates till the passing of the award dated 31.8.2001 i.e. after a period of over six months form service. Mr.S.R. Surana submitted that the respondent is a poor workman in whose favour the award dated 31.8.2001 remains unimplemented for the last over 17 years inter-alia for reasons of an ex-parte interim order dated 6.3.2012 passed by this Court. Mr.S.R. Surana further submitted that assuming without admitting that summon was served on the petitioner by way of registered post unaccompanied by a claim petition, as is the best case of the petitioner, it is of no consequence for reasons analogous to the second proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. MR.S.R. Surana submitted that albeit the provisions of CPC do not attract to claim petition before the Labour Court, the rule enunciated in its provisions can be analogously applied for the reasons of justice, equity and good conscience. Mr.S.R. Surana submitted that in these aspects of the matter, now agitated in the application for vacation the ex-parte ad interim order were not brought to the notice of this Court when it passed it. The said ad-interim order now therefore be vacated.