ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THE RESPONDENT WORKMAN CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN APPOINTED AS A DAILY WAGER WITH THE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT. A REFERENCE WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED TERMINATION OF THE WORKMANS SERVICES UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT. A WRITTEN STATEMENT WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICER NAMED AS THE RESPONDENT (WHO IS THE FIRST APPELLANT BEFORE US). A DEFENCE WAS RAISED AS TO THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM AND ALSO WITH REGARD TO THE LABOUR COURTS JURISDICTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT WAS NOT AN INDUSTRY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT. WHILE THE MATTER WAS PENDING BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT THE REFERENCE WAS AMENDED BY ADDING ANOTHER RESPONDENT TO THE REFERENCE. THE ADDED RESPONDENT IS THE SECOND APPELLANT IN THIS APPEAL. ULTIMATELY, AN EX PARTE AWARD WAS PASSED ON 8-7-1997 IN FAVOUR OF THE WORKMAN. ON AN APPLICATION FILED BY THE PRESENT APPELLANTS THE EX PARTE AWARD WAS RECALLED ON 9-10-1998. THE LABOUR COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANTS SHOULD NOT BE PENALISED BECAUSE OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES WHO WERE DEPUTED TO LOOK AFTER THE CASE. THE MATTER WAS DIRECTED TO BE EXPEDITED AND THE APPELLANTS WERE DIRECTED TO PAY COSTS OF RS. 500 TO THE WORKMAN. 3. THE WORKMAN FILED A WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING THE ORDER RECALLING THE EX PARTE AWARD AND THE HIGH COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LABOUR COURT HAD THE JURISDICTION TO RECALL THE EX PARTE AWARD. THE HIGH COURT ALSO EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT: "IT IS SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT WHETHER FOR NON-APPEARANCE OF A PARTY THERE IS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE OR NOT IS A QUESTION OF FACT, AND THEREFORE, THE WRIT/REVISIONAL COURT SHOULD NOT INTERFERE AGAINST SUCH FINDING." DESPITE SUCH OBSERVATION, THE HIGH COURT WENT INTO THE FACTS AND, HAVING ASSESSED THE EVIDENCE, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPLICATION FOR RECALLING THE AWARD WAS NOT BONA FIDE AS THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF HAD BEEN THOROUGHLY NEGLIGENT IN ITS CASE AND THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR RECALLING THE EX PARTE AWARD. 4. WE ARE OF THE VIEW, THAT THE HIGH COURT WAS ENTIRELY WRONG IN INTERFERING WITH THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LABOUR COURT WHICH WAS, AS OBSERVED BY THE HIGH COURT NOT ONLY A QUESTION OF FACT BUT ALSO ONE OF DISCRETION OF THE LABOUR COURT. 4. WE ARE OF THE VIEW, THAT THE HIGH COURT WAS ENTIRELY WRONG IN INTERFERING WITH THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LABOUR COURT WHICH WAS, AS OBSERVED BY THE HIGH COURT NOT ONLY A QUESTION OF FACT BUT ALSO ONE OF DISCRETION OF THE LABOUR COURT. IT IS NOT AS IF THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR JUSTIFYING THE CONCLUSION OF THE LABOUR COURT. THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPELLANTS APPLICATION FOR RECALL WAS NOT A QUESTION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE HIGH COURT IN EXERCISING JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN RAM NATH SAO V. GOBARDHAN SAO1 RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT DEAL WITH THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER. 5. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT IS SET ASIDE. THE LABOUR COURT WILL NOW DISPOSE OF THE DISPUTE PENDING BEFORE IT AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE PREFERABLY WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT OF A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDER. 6. THE APPELLANTS WILL PAY THE COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ASSESSED AT RS 2000 (INCLUSIVE OF THE COSTS AWARDED BY THE LABOUR COURT) TO THE RESPONDENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS FROM DATE.