JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. They have submitted their written arguments and case laws. 2. This petition has been filed challenging validity and correctness of the award dated 8.3.1995 passed by the labour Court in adjudication case No. 90 of 1993. 3. Services of respondent No. 2-workman are claimed to have been illegally terminated with effect from 1.1.1990, in respect of which he raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government to the labour Court where it was registered as adjudication case No. 90 of 1993. 4. Case of the workman before the labour Court was that he was appointed in 1963 by Zila Parishad, Kanpur on the post of Pond Moharrir. He continuously worked upto 31.12.1989 and his services have been illegally terminated without any reason with effect from 1.1.1990. 5. It appears from the award that the employers in spite of service of notices/summons through registered post, neither filed written arguments nor appeared in the proceedings before the labour Court in the aforesaid adjudication case. The workman filed his written statement and gave his evidence. 6. The labour Court therefore appears to have proceeded under Rule 12(9) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 and held that since statement of the workman had not been controverted, as such from the evidence and pleadings of the workman, the Court was bound to hold that concerned workman was appointed in 1963, he worked upto 31.12.1989 regularly and his services have been illegally terminated without compliance of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The labour Court by the impugned award dated 8.3.1995 directed the employers to reinstate the workman in service with full back wages apart from payment of cost of Rs. 100/-. The award was published on the notice board on 14.7.1995 and was sent to the parties on 15.7.1995. As per provisions of Section 6-A of the Act, the award became enforceable with effect from 13.8.1995 after expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication. 7. It also appears from record that a restoration application was filed by the petitioner-Zila Panchayat on 25.2.1997 i.e. after lapse of 30 days from the date of publication of the award. 8. 7. It also appears from record that a restoration application was filed by the petitioner-Zila Panchayat on 25.2.1997 i.e. after lapse of 30 days from the date of publication of the award. 8. Contention of the counsel for petitioner is that respondent workman was never employed by Zila Panchayat and he fraudulently claimed to be an employee of the petitioner and thus industrial dispute raised by him was no basis, that labour Court has misdirected itself in holding that respondent No. 2 was a workman of the petitioner without there being any evidence of his appointment and termination, therefore, factum of employment of the workman in Zila Panchayat is not proved. 9. As regards receipt of notices/summons is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel for petitioner that respondent workman manipulated the service and no notice from the labour Court was ever received by the officers of Zila Panchayat, as such they could not appear before the labour Court to contest the case. But the Presiding Officer without taking any evidence established the relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and has passed the impugned ex parte award dated 8.3.1995. 10. Second contention of the counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner acquired knowledge of ex parte award on 14.8.1995 and filed a restoration application within 30 days from the date of knowledge which has been appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, therefore, it cannot be said that the restoration application is beyond time. 11. It is lastly contended by the counsel for petitioner that ex parte award dated 8.3.1995 was thereafter amended by the State Government on 1.5.1996 i.e. after lapse of one year three months, as such it became enforceable from 1.5.1996 and it is this date from which the limitation will run and in any case the petitioner had moved restoration application earlier i.e. on 5.9.1995. 12. The counsel for petitioner has relied upon supplementary affidavit filed before this Court and states that from perusal of the attendance register of employees of Zila Panchayat, Kanpur Dehat for the period May 1989 to May 1990, it is apparent that respondent No. 2 was never employed by the petitioner. 12. The counsel for petitioner has relied upon supplementary affidavit filed before this Court and states that from perusal of the attendance register of employees of Zila Panchayat, Kanpur Dehat for the period May 1989 to May 1990, it is apparent that respondent No. 2 was never employed by the petitioner. He has laid stress upon the fact that respondent No. 2 could not file any evidence before the labour Court regarding his appointment and termination as stated earlier and hence the ex parte award is liable to be quashed. 13. Reliance has been then placed by the counsel for petitioner upon the following finding of the labour Court : ^^kiFk iwoZd fn;s x;s lk{; esa Jfed us vius fyf[kr dFku esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh iwfrZ dh] vr% izfrokn ds vHkko esa ;g ekuus dh ckè;rk gS fd lEcfUèkr Jfed us o"kZ 1963 ls 31-12-1989 rd fu;fer dk;Z fd;kA** 14. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others, AIR 1981 SC 606 , wherein it has been held that restoration/recall application for recalling of the order or award must be submitted within 30 days from the date the award become enforceable in the eyes of law. 15. On the basis of aforesaid judgment, it is urged that in the instant case the award was published on 14.7.1995. As it was amended on 1.5.1996, hence it became enforceable after the amendment on 1.6.1996, and that restoration application has already been moved on 5.9.1995, therefore, the labour Court has committed illegality in rejecting it as time barred. 16. 15. On the basis of aforesaid judgment, it is urged that in the instant case the award was published on 14.7.1995. As it was amended on 1.5.1996, hence it became enforceable after the amendment on 1.6.1996, and that restoration application has already been moved on 5.9.1995, therefore, the labour Court has committed illegality in rejecting it as time barred. 16. Sri B.N. Singh, counsel for the workman, submits that an application dated 5.9.95 is said to have been filed by the petitioner but this application was not filed in the labour Court and labour Court in its order dated 4.4.1997 has observed non receipt of alleged application dated 5.9.95 and it appears that this an afterthought to fill up the large timing gap in filing the restoration application dated 27.2.1997 and order on these application has been passed by the labour Court on 4.4.97 and these applications have been rejected by rejoinder order for ready and paragraph 2 and 3 of the order is relevant for the purpose of controversy which shows that petitioner District Panchayat was very careless and negligent in pursuing the adjuration case before the labour Court and same may kindly be perused by this Hon. Court. 17. Counsel for the petitioner laid stress that the award was amended vide order dated 3.7.1995 but a copy of the order dated 3.7.1995 has not been filed but from the order dated 4.4.1997 only “a word” was corrected in the award. The contention of the petitioner is that the employer was given no notice and was not heard on the correction application. In the 3rd paragraph of the order dated 4.4.1997 it is also observed that the petitioner District Panchayat was issued notice of an amendment application and its authorised representative appeared on 15.9.1995, 8.12.1995 and 8.1.1996, but no restoration application was filed. The labour Court also observed that no restoration application dated 5.9.1995 as claimed was ever filed by the petitioner in the case and no such application is on its record and similarly alleged application dated 6.9.1996 and 21.11.1996 as stated in the affidavit in support of restoration application is also not on record. A perusal of Annexure-4 shows that in spite of notices served on the petitioner, its authorised representative appeared on various dates but no restoration application was filed within time allowed and at the earliest opportunity. 18. A perusal of Annexure-4 shows that in spite of notices served on the petitioner, its authorised representative appeared on various dates but no restoration application was filed within time allowed and at the earliest opportunity. 18. It is next submitted that conduct of the petitioner shows that its officers remained very careless and negligent and deliberately taken the summon issued by the labour Court lightly and in spite of personal service by process server of the Court and by the registered post twice, officers of the petitioner District Panchayat acted in lethargic manner and not attended the proceedings of the adjuration case on the various dates fixed by labour Court as such the award dated 8.3.1995 and the order dated 4.4.1997 are legal and valid and called no interference by this Court. 19. Sri B.N Singh further submits that since the restoration application was filed much after the enforcement of award under Section 6-A of the Act, as such restoration application itself was not maintainable in the eyes of law as held by this Court in its judgment and order dated 13.10.2003 in Writ Petition No. 20015 of 2000, Zahid v. Nagar Nigam, Bareilly and others. Against this judgment, SLP (Civil) No. 4179 of 2004 was filed before the Hon. Supreme Court which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 5.7.2000, with the following order : “Heard. Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.” 20. It is submitted that review petition against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 29.3.2005, which is as under : “Delay condoned. The review petition is dismissed.” 21. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record it appears that the answering respondent was working under the petitioner District Panchayat on the post of Pond clerk since 1963 till 31.12.1989 and continuously worked under the petitioner without any break in service and his services were terminated without complying with provisions of Section 6-N of the Act with effect from 1.1.1990 as is evident from paragraph 3 of the award. Since the averment made by contesting respondent in his written statement and evidence on oath before the labour Court, as such petitioner is entitled to relief, remained uncontroverted as such the award made by labour Court is legal and just and call for no interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. The order dated 4.4.1997 passed by the labour Court is fully legal and just and restoration application filed much after expiry of the pendency of the proceedings before the labour Court was not maintainable and rightly rejected. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 23. It further appears from Annexure 4 dated 4.4.1997 that process server had in fact visited the petitioner concern thrice on 6.8.1993, 17.8.1993 and 26.8.1993 but they refused to accept the notice and report of the server was on record. Summons were also sent through registered post to the employer, therefore, it cannot be said that notices/summons from the labour Court in the aforesaid adjudication case were not served upon them. The labour Court has rightly proceeded to pass ex parte award. 24. As regards correction application is concerned, the employers were again sent notices for correction of one word in the award. Their representative appeared on 15.9.1995, 8.12.1995 and 8.1.1996 but they did not move any restoration application. The labour Court therefore rightly concluded that the employer had knowledge of the case from the very beginning and rightly rejected application of the petitioner for restoration/recalling of the order on the ground of limitation. Their representative appeared on 15.9.1995, 8.12.1995 and 8.1.1996 but they did not move any restoration application. The labour Court therefore rightly concluded that the employer had knowledge of the case from the very beginning and rightly rejected application of the petitioner for restoration/recalling of the order on the ground of limitation. The order passed by the labour court is as follows : ^^vkosnd dk dFku gS fd lakksèku vknsk ds iwoZ mUgsa fookn ds lEcUèk esa dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gqbZA blds foijhr vfHkfu.kZ; fookn dh i=koyh dh lwph 4 Mh ij U;k;ky; ds izkslsl lcZj dh fjiksVZ gS fd 6-8-1993] 17-8-1993 o 26-8-1993 dks izfroknh dk;kZy; esa lEeu ysus ls bUdkj fd;k x;kA bl ij Hkh jft0 Mkd }kjk mUgsa lEeu Hkstk x;k ftl ij lEeu dks bl vfHk;qfDr ds lkFk okil dj fn;k x;k fd mUgsa ;gk¡ fookn ls lEcfUèkr oknh us dk;Z u fd;k vkSj u dj jgk gSA bl fVIi.kh ij vij eq[; vfèkdkjh] ftyk ifj"kn dkuiqj ds gLrk{kj fnukad 8-12-1993 vafdr gSA rn~ijkUr mUgsa jftLVMZ lEeu 23-9-1994 dks Hkstk x;kA mDr lEeu okil u vkus ij bls rkehy ekudj Mh 1-12-1994 dks ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh ds vknsk fn;s x;sA ,okMZ esa ,d kCn ds lakksèku gsrq Jfed i{k us ,d vkosnu 25-8-1995 dks fn;k ftl ij i{kksa dks iqu% cqyk;k x;kA vkosnd izfroknh dh vksj ls muds izfrfufèk 15-9-1995] 8-12-1995] 8-1-1996 dks mifLFkr gq;s ij mUgksaus jsLVksjsku izkFkZuk i= ugha fn;kA mijksDr fooj.k ls Li"V gS fd lsok;kstd i{k dks fookn dh tkudkjh cgqr igys ls FkhA vr% ;Fkk le; jsLVksjsku vkosnu u fn;s tkus ds dkj.k vc bls Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS D;ksafd ;g vfrdky frjksfgr gSA vkosnd dk ;g dFku Hkh lgh ugha gS fd mUgksaus 5-9-1995 dks vfèkoDrk ds ekè;e ls foyEc Hk"kZ.k rFkk jsLVksjsku izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k Fkk D;ksafd i=koyh esa ,slk dksbZ i= ugha gSA blh Hkkafr dksVZ DydZ Jh jke nqykjs }kjk izsf"kr rFkk dFkr dksbZ i= fnukad 6-9-1996 rFkk 21-11-1996 Hkh i=koyh esa miyCèk ugha gSA** 25. I am therefore of the considered view that counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any illegality or infirmity in the award; that the labour Court has rightly proceeded ex party taking summons/notices to have been served upon them and rightly rejected the recall application on the ground of limitation in accordance with law laid down in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. (supra) and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, U.P., Agra and others, (Writ Petition No. 54914 of 2004, decided by this Court on 7-10-2005). 26. The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 19.8.1997 is vacated. As a consequence of this dismissal of this petition, the workman may get the award enforced in accordance with law. ————