JUDGMENT 1. - On a dispute in regard to termination of services of the respondent No. 2 (the concerned workman) been referred to the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. an ex parte award was passed by the Tribunal on 22.5.1995 holding the termination of services of the concerned workman as illegal and unjustified and further directing the department for reinstatement of the concerned workman with all consequential benefits including back wages. 2. An application was filed by the petitioner on 5.8.1995 for setting aside the ex parte award before the Tribunal. On the basis of a written compromise between the parties, submitted before the Tribunal on 6.5.1997, which was duly attested by the Tribunal, the ex parte award dated 22.5.1995 was recalled vide order dated 6.5.1997. As per the compromise, which was duly attested by the Tribunal, the concerned workman was to be taken back on duty within one month. For remaining reliefs, it was left to the discretion of the Tribunal. 3. After recalling the ex parte award, the petitioners sought time to reinstate the concerned workman on duty, however, subsequently, on refusal of the department to abide by the compromise, as submitted before the Tribunal, an application was submitted by the concerned workman on 6.11.1997 for recalling the order dated 6.5.1997 and restoring the ex parte award dated 22 5.1995. The Tribunal, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the application as filed on behalf of the concerned workman vide order dated 13.11.1998 and restored the ex parte award dated 22.5.1995. 4. The only submission made by counsel for the petitioners has been that at the time of compromise. as submitted before the Tribunal, the then counsel, appearing on behalf of the department, had no instructions to enter into such compromise and, as such, the compromise was illegal and non-est in the eyes of law. 5. In my opinion, the submission made by counsel for the petitioners is wholly misconceived and untenable. The compromise duly signed by an authorised representative of the department can legally be presumed to have been made by the department. The department, subsequently to the recalling )f the ex parte award also sought time to reinstate the concerned workman. It was only on second thought that the department refused to abide by the compromise on the basis of which the ex parte award was recalled by the Tribunal on 6.5.1997. The department, subsequently to the recalling )f the ex parte award also sought time to reinstate the concerned workman. It was only on second thought that the department refused to abide by the compromise on the basis of which the ex parte award was recalled by the Tribunal on 6.5.1997. Such erratic behaviour of the concerned authorities of the department cannot be appreciated in any manner. They cannot be allowed to play hide and seek with the Tribunal what to say of the concerned workman. 6. After having carefully considered entire facts and circumstances of the present case, I find no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 3.11.1998 so as to call for any further interference of this court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having no merit with costs of Rs. 20,000/-. 8. Since the termination was made in the year 1987 and the award was also passed in the year 1995 and consequential order was also passed in the year 1998, in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to direct the petitioners to reinstate the concerned workman within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioners are further directed to make the payment of entire arrears, including the costs ordered above, within thirty days thereafter.Writ Petition Dismissed with Costs of Rs. 20000/-. *******