Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1628 (RAJ)

Soil Conservation Officer v. Prabhu Dayal

2003-12-05

K S.RATHORE

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - The Department has preferred the writ petition No. 3588/97 against 1 the award dated 16.9.93 (Annex. 2) and order dated 12.9.96 (Annex. 7) by which the application for setting aside/review of the ex parte award was dismissed and seek direction to remand the matter back to the learned Industrial Tribunal for its fresh adjudication. 2. The writ petition No. 5617/2000 is preferred by the workman to give semi permanent/permanent status to the workman w.e.f. 1.4.92/1.4.2000. 3. In the instant matter the negligence of the officers of the department is clearly reflected as to how they represented the case of the petitioner-department before the Industrial Tribunal as evident by the order sheets (Annexure-C) which shows that since 27.8.92 despite of service upon the Department nobody has appeared i.e. on 27,8.92. 16.10.92. 2.11.92, 2.12.92, 4.1.98, 21.1.93. 17.3.93. 26 5.93, 17.8.93. 5.9.93 and 16.9.93. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal had no option other than to pass ex parte award. 4. Vide award dated 16.9.93 it was held that the petitioner had worked more than 240 days in one calender year and the termination order dated 1.4.92 was set aside and the respondent-workman was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages. Against the ex parte award dated 16.9.93 the Department filed an application for restoration of the award. After nearing the parties, vide order dated 12.9.96, the application for setting aside the ex parte award, was also rejected. 5. This writ petition was admitted on 28.7 97 and the award dated 16.9 93 was stayed. It is given out at Bar that in compliance of the award the petitioner was reinstated back in service and still working with the Department. During the pendency of the writ petition the workman submitted an application under Section 17(B) of the I.D. Act and this court vide order dated 6.1.2000 directed that the employer shall pay the last pay drawn to workman during the pendency of writ petition and the arrear shall be paid within two months. Since the Department has reinstated the workman and regularly paying the salary the compliance of the order dated 6.1.2000 is already made. 1. 1999 (3) SCT 763 State of Rajasthan v. Panna Ram 2. 1996 (2) WLC (Raj.) 342 Asstt Engineer Public Health & Engineering Deptt. v. Imamuden Khatri 3. 2002 (3) SCT 411 Surajgarh Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti v. Labour Court 6. 1. 1999 (3) SCT 763 State of Rajasthan v. Panna Ram 2. 1996 (2) WLC (Raj.) 342 Asstt Engineer Public Health & Engineering Deptt. v. Imamuden Khatri 3. 2002 (3) SCT 411 Surajgarh Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti v. Labour Court 6. Heard rival submissions of the respective parties and gone through the ex parte award dated 16.9.93 and also gone through the order dated 12.9.96 passed on the application for setting aside the award and also perused the order sheets (Annexure 6). 7. After perusal of the order sheets it appears that since 1992 to 1993 10 no body appeared on behalf of the department. This shows that the Department was not serious to challenge the claim filed by the respondent-workman and even not cared to represent before the Tribunal and indirectly the officers of the petitioner-department helped the respondent-workman as evident by the order sheets. The application for setting aside the award dated 6.9.93 was also filed after period of limitation i.e. on 6.1.94 and the application was also casually submitted and not even supported by any document to show that in the interest of justice it is necessary to set aside the ex parte order and only reason which has been mentioned that due to change in the administration set up and due to change in jurisdiction the petitioner department was unable to represent the case before the Industrial Tribunal. 8. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed by the petitioner-department tails and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to cost. 9. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the respondent-workman is partly allowed to the extent that the case of the workman be considered in accordance with the provisions of law for declaring him semi-permanent/permanent. 10. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.Petition of Department Dismissed and that of Workman Partly Allowed. *******