JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed against the Impugned Labour Court award dated 27.2.93 (Annx. 2) by which the claim of the respondent workman has been accepted and direction of reinstatement with full backwages has been given. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the workman raised the industrial dispute and the appropriate Government vide order dated 3.5.91 made a reference as to whether the termination of the services of the workman was in accordance with the law and if not to what relief he was entitled for. In pursuance of the said reference, the claim petition was filed by the workman claiming that he was removed from service w.e.f. 31.1.90 though he had worked for more than 240 days and his removal was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The award was made ex parse and there is some dispute whether there had been proper service of notice sent by the learned Labour Court on the present petitioner. The Labour Court merely accepting the claim of the workman made the award in his favour and granted the relief as aforestated. Hence this petition. 3. In ordinary circumstances, ex parte award should not be examined by Writ Court as there is specific remedy available to the person aggrieved by filing application under Rule 22-A of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1958 to set aside the ex parte award even after it has been published in gazette (vide Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal & ors., AIR 1981 SC 606 ). The issue of limitation can also be sorted out before the Labour Court by filing an application stating that the same be computed from the date of knowledge (vide Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., AIR 1961 SC 1500 ). However, since the Instant case remained pending before this Court for more than 8 years, it is not desirable to ask the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and file the said application under Rule 22-A of the said Rules at such a belated stage. Thus, the case is examined on merits. 4. Firstly, there is no date of retrenchment alleged termination in the reference made by the appropriate Government vide order dated 3.5.91. Thus, the case is examined on merits. 4. Firstly, there is no date of retrenchment alleged termination in the reference made by the appropriate Government vide order dated 3.5.91. In absence of date of termination it may become difficult for the Labour Court to make the award or examine the case on merits for the reason that the date of termination becomes very relevant to determine whether the workman had completed 240 days in a calendar year counting backwards from the date of termination or not. If the reference itself suffers from illegality it is open to either of the parties in dispute or even to the Labour Court to ask the appropriate Government to make correction (vide Madan Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & ors., AIR 2000 SC 537 ). 5. Moreso, the award impugned had been made only considering the claim petition of the workman; there is no reference as to what date the workman had started to work with the present petitioner and without examining whether he had completed the period required under the law or not the impugned award has been made. Even the claim petition does not furnish the required information. In such eventuality, the Impugned award could not have been made. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned award dated 27.2.93 (Annx. 2) is set aside and the case is remitted back to the learned Labour Court to decide afresh expeditiously preferably within a period of nine months from the date of filing a certified copy of this order and in case in the original reference order dated 3.5.91 the date of termination is not mentioned, either of these parties or the learned Labour Court may approach the appropriate Government to make the correction accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed - Case Remanded. *******