RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THE present petition is filed by Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited ("the Nigam" for short), through its Executive Engineer, Narmada Canal Scheme, Division-4/6, Patadi, District-Surendranagar, challenging the judgement and award dated 3rd December, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No. 49 of 1995. ( 2 ) THIS Court has come across number of cases in which unhappy situation is created by the officers of the public bodies in the matter of defending of the cases before the Labour Court. It is a matter of regret that a public body, which acts through its officers, fails in defending its case only on account of non-discharge of the duty by its officers in proper manner. The present case is also one such case. The total length of the judgement and award by which the employee is ordered to be reinstated with full back-wages with effect from 1st February, 1998 runs into only two pages. Paragraph no. 2 narrates the contents of Statement of Claim wherein, inter alia, it is mentioned that the workman was serving as a Senior Clerk with the petitioner-Nigam; he was getting the monthly salary of Rs. 600=00; and, his services came to be terminated on 21st August, 1992. Therefore, it is prayed that, the said action of the Nigam be declared to be illegal and he should be reinstated in service with continuity of service, with back-wages. The next paragraph records that the Nigam filed its reply by Exh. 5 contending that the workman had worked on temporary basis for one year; and, that the workman has not worked for 240 days and that the provisions of Section-25-F, G and H are not breached and, therefore, the Reference of the workman be rejected with costs. The next paragraph records that three documents were produced, namely, demand notice, receipt of the Postal Department and Acknowledgment Due Slip, which are exhibited as Exhs. 8, 9 and 10. ( 3 ) WHAT is important is paragraph-6 wherein it is stated that the deposition of the workman recorded at Exh. 7. It is stated therein that on 21st August, 1992, he was terminated from service and at the time of terminating, he was neither paid notice pay nor retrenchment compensation; that he had sent a demand notice to the Nigam, but, the same was not replied. 7. It is stated therein that on 21st August, 1992, he was terminated from service and at the time of terminating, he was neither paid notice pay nor retrenchment compensation; that he had sent a demand notice to the Nigam, but, the same was not replied. The learned Judge of the Labour Court has recorded that, `there is no reason for not believing the deposition of the concerned workman and the reason for recording `this is that the Nigam has contested it only by saying that the workman has not produced his order of appointment. The learned Judge has then recorded that, `the Nigam has not produced any material to substantiate its contention that the workman was temporary. Finally, the learned Judge has recorded a finding in clear terms that, `therefore, it is proved that the concerned workman was illegally terminated and, therefore, he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service with back-wages. The next paragraph sets out the reasons as to why the learned Judge has awarded the back-wages only with effect from 1st February, 1998 and not with effect from 21st August, 1992. ( 4 ) MRS. D. T. SHAH, learned Counsel for the respondent-workman, submitted that the provisions of section-17b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not complied with after the statement was made before this Court. Mrs. D. T. Shah, learned Counsel for the respondent-workman, submitted that the contentions, raised before this Court, were never raised before the Labour Court. Mrs. Shah relied upon the following two judgements: (i) air 2002 SC 568 ; (ii) 2002 (3) G. L. H. 245 ( 5 ) MR. S. P. HASURKAR, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Nigam, states that the Nigam will comply with the provisions of Section-17b of the Act till date subject to its right to get it reimbursed from the officer at fault. ( 6 ) THERE cannot be a better example than the present one of impersonal approach on the part of the officers of a public body. But then, this Court is duty bound to consider that if the judgement and award under challenge is allowed to stand, it is the public money which is going to be paid to the workman and one more back-door entry will stand rectified/approved. But then, this Court is duty bound to consider that if the judgement and award under challenge is allowed to stand, it is the public money which is going to be paid to the workman and one more back-door entry will stand rectified/approved. ( 7 ) IN the present petition, by an amendment, the petitioner-Nigam has produced on record certain documents, which includes the appointment orders issued by the petitioner-Nigam, but, what is more important is the document produced at Annexure-E, which is regarding the Executive Engineer, who was working at the relevant time at the place where the respondent-workman was given appointment. It is alleged and thereafter, it is proved that the said officer was involved in the activity of giving irregular appointments to the persons in the cadre of Tracer, Peon, Watchman, Senior Clerk, Junior Clerk, English Typist, etc. All these appointments were de hors the power of the concerned officer. In fact, the officer had no power to appoint any such person because he was never vested with such power. It is also clear from the document/s that except Class-III posts, all other posts were covered under a ban imposed by the Government and, therefore, the appointments, which were made by the officer concerned, with a view to oblige the persons concerned, were illegal and, therefore, the officer was held responsible for committing the breach of the orders of the Government. It is also borne out from the said document/s that the said officer was then punished with a penalty of deduction of Rs. 300=00 from his pension. ( 8 ) IN view of the above, the appointment of the respondent-workman is without any sanction of law and hence, cannot accrue any legal right in favour of the respondent-workman. As is observed hereinabove about the tendency of the officer/s of the public bodies, the question which is required to be considered is as to whether the public body and the public exchequer be allowed to suffer on account of misconduct of an officer of the public body. The contentions, which were not raised before the Labour Court, are taken into consideration because it is a matter of record which is not falsified. Further, the judgements cited by the learned Advocate for the respondent do not have any application to the facts of the case on hand. The contentions, which were not raised before the Labour Court, are taken into consideration because it is a matter of record which is not falsified. Further, the judgements cited by the learned Advocate for the respondent do not have any application to the facts of the case on hand. As observed earlier, in the present case, officer of a public body has not bothered to defend the case before the Labour Court. Not only that, after filing of the written statement, the officer did not bother to remain present before the Labour Court, as a result of which, an ex parte award is passed. It was on account of misconduct of the officer of the public body that the Reference remained undefended before the Labour Court. In this background, the public exchequer cannot be allowed to suffer. ( 9 ) IN the result, the present petition is allowed. The judgement and award dated 3rd December, 2001 of the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No. 49 of 1995 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. The amount paid, if any, in compliance of the provisions of Section-17b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 section-17b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall be recovered from the officer on account of whose default the same is required to be paid by the petitioner-Nigam. A report of the compliance of this direction be placed before the Court. ( 10 ) IN view of the disposal of the main Special Civil Application, no orders on Civil Application No. 8578 of 2003. .