Judgment K.M. Thaker, J.—Heard Mr. Munshaw, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Gogia, learned Advocate for respondents. As common issues are involved in all the matters, they all are heard and decided together by this common judgment and order. In view of the issues raised in the petition, Rule. At the request of and with the consent of the learned advocates, Rule is made returnable forthwith and petitions are taken up for final hearing. Mr. Gogia has waived service of notice of rule. 2. The petitioner - District Surendranagar Panchayat has filed captioned petitions challenging common order dated 8.1.2008 passed in Misc. Application Nos. 55 to 66 of 2007 in Reference (LCS) No. 65 of 2003. The petitioner Panchayat has also challenged order dated 23.1.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No. 65 of 2003, whereby the Labour Court allowed the reference, ex-parte on account of continuous absence of present petitioner during the proceedings before the. Labour Court. 3. Upon hearing learned Advocates for the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned award dated 23.1.2007 and the order dated 8.1.2008 as well as the memo of petition and the affidavit filed by the workman, the following factual aspects emerge:— (a) The concerned 11 respondent workmen claimed that they were working with the petitioner panchayat since 1980 and that their services were terminated with effect from 1st March, 2003, without following any procedure prescribed in law. (b) Aggrieved by such illegal termination, the said 11 workmen raised an industrial dispute which culminated into Reference (LCS) No. 65 of 2003. (c) The workmen filed their statement of claim, however, the said statement of claim was not responded by the petitioner panchayat and the allegations made by the workmen were not disputed by the petitioner panchayats by filing their written statement. (d) Nobody entered appearance also on behalf of petitioner-panchayat, hence by order passed below Exh.6 the right to file written statement was closed. The workmen, in lieu of examination-in-chief, filed their respective affidavits. (e) Due to absence of the petitioner panchayat, the concerned workmen were not subjected to cross-examination. Consequently the oral evidence of the workmen remained uncontroverted. (f) Since nobody on behalf of petitioner panchayat attended the proceedings even after the oral evidence of the concerned workmen, the order below Exh.24 was passed by the Labour Court declaring that the stage of cross-examination of the. Consequently the oral evidence of the workmen remained uncontroverted. (f) Since nobody on behalf of petitioner panchayat attended the proceedings even after the oral evidence of the concerned workmen, the order below Exh.24 was passed by the Labour Court declaring that the stage of cross-examination of the. concerned workmen and panchayat’s right to lead evidence was closed. (g) Subsequently the submissions in support of the claim were made on behalf of the concerned workmen which were, also not opposed as at that stage also the panchayat did not take any steps to attend the proceedings and oppose the. reference. (h) Consequently, the Labour Court was constrained to decide the reference, in view of continuous and persistent absence of the petitioner panchayat, on basis of material available on record and in absence of any evidence on the part of the petitioner panchayat. (i) After considering the material available on record, the Labour Court passed the award dated 23.1.2007 and directed the petitioner panchayat to reinstate the said 11 workmen on their original post. The Labour Court, however, has denied to grant relief of any backwages. (j) Even after the said award, the petitioner panchayat did not take any immediate steps for restoration of the proceedings and it was only in the fag end of November 2007 that the petitioner panchayat, after almost more than 10 months from the date on which the award came to be passed, preferred Misc. Applications No. 55 to 66 of 2007 praying that the ex-parte award may be recalled and the reference proceedings may be restored to file. (k) Along with the said applications, the petitioner panchayat also preferred applications for condonation of delay. The said applications were opposed by 11 workmen (I) After hearing the concerned parties and after taking into account the explanation given by the petitioner panchayat, the Labour Court passed an order dated 8.1.2008 rejecting the said applications praying for condonation of delay. Consequently the obligation of reinstating the workmen had to be discharged by the petitioner panchayat, (m) It is in the back drop of such facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner panchayat has preferred present petitions challenging the aforesaid ex-parte award and the orders in the said Misc. Applications. 5. Mr. Consequently the obligation of reinstating the workmen had to be discharged by the petitioner panchayat, (m) It is in the back drop of such facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner panchayat has preferred present petitions challenging the aforesaid ex-parte award and the orders in the said Misc. Applications. 5. Mr. Munshaw, learned Advocate for the petitioner panchayat, in his submission, has strenuously urged that the petitioner panchayat had instructed an advocate to enter appearance on behalf of panchayat, however, it is the advocate who did not enter the appearance whereas the officer of the panchayat remained under impression that the advocate will be attending the proceedings and they were not aware that the learned Advocate was not attending the hearing. 6. The petitioner panchayat has, in support of the said submissions, placed on record of this petition, a communication dated 24.9.2003 which is addressed to Deputy Executive Engineer to engage advocate to defend the said proceedings. A copy of said communication is addressed to one Shri Rajesh K. Acharya. However that alone will not establish that in pursuance of the said instructions dated 24.9.2003, claimed to have been given by the Executive Engineer to the Deputy Executive Engineer, necessary formalities for engaging services of an advocate and instructing him to represent the panchayat, e.g. giving duly signed authority letter/Vakalatnama handing over relevant papers and providing necessary and sufficient instructions etc., were carried out or not. Besides, even otherwise the concerned officer cannot rest contended after instructing an advocate about any pending matter and he cannot ignore to keep track of the matter and to take follow up actions e.g. ensuring filing of written statement, giving instructions for conducting the case, giving evidence etc. 7. Be that as it may. The fact remains that nobody attended proceedings on behalf of petitioner panchayat. It is also to be noted that during the period from 2003 to 2007, no one from the petitioner panchayat ever bothered or even inquired with either from the advocate or from the Court as to whether the Court proceedings were being duly attended or not and as to whether reply contesting the reference had been filed or not. 8. The said inaction on the part of the petitioner panchayat demonstrates total negligence of duty on the part of concerned officers who did not even bother to keep track of the proceedings. 9. 8. The said inaction on the part of the petitioner panchayat demonstrates total negligence of duty on the part of concerned officers who did not even bother to keep track of the proceedings. 9. The Labour Court was ultimately constrained to pass an ex-parte award in view of continuous and persistent absence of the petitioner panchayat. 10. Even thereafter the petitioner panchayat did not take any steps to mend the situation for almost 10 to 11 months which resulted into delay in preferring the Misc. Applications. The only reason advanced by the petitioner panchayat to explain the long was “procedural delay in completing the formalities.” 11. After considering the submissions of the petitioner panchayat and the respondent -workmen, the Labour Court rejected the Misc. Applications. 12. When the petitioner panchayat exhibited such unexplained delay and inexcusable negligence towards the reference proceedings before the Labour Court and then caused delay of 11 months in preferring Misc. Applications and at that stage also, except the explanation on ground of procedural difficulties, could not advance any other ground to satisfactorily explain the delay, then no fault can be found with the Labour Court in rejecting the Misc. Applications. 13. Shri Gogia, learned Advocate, for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner has failed to make out case for not attending hearing before the Labour Court and has also failed to advance any legally acceptable and substainable explanation for the delay caused in preferring Misapplications, and that therefore the relief as prayed for ought not be granted. 14. In present case, interim relief as prayed for would cast an obligation of payment of wages in accordance with provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act which would be an unproductive, burden on public coffers. Therefore at the request and with the consent of parties the petitions are finally heard at this stage. 15. Considering the aforesaid aspect, it was inquired (before accepting the request for final disposal) from Mr. Munshaw, learned Advocate for the petitioner panchayat as to whether it would opt to pay wages in accordance, with the provisions under Section 17-B of the Act during the pendency of the petition until final hearing and disposal of the. 15. Considering the aforesaid aspect, it was inquired (before accepting the request for final disposal) from Mr. Munshaw, learned Advocate for the petitioner panchayat as to whether it would opt to pay wages in accordance, with the provisions under Section 17-B of the Act during the pendency of the petition until final hearing and disposal of the. petition or to pay amount equivalent to the amount required to be paid under Section 17-B of the Act, during the pendency of the reference proceedings before the Labour Court wherein the Labour Court may be requested to complete the proceedings within reasonable but specified time limit. 16. On this count also, Mr. Munsna learned Advocate for the petitioner panchayat has advanced an objection stating that since the petitioner panchayat does not have any record available with it about employment of the respondents, (inasmuch as according to panchayat the concerned persons were never employed by panchayat and they have never worked with panchayat), it would be difficult for the panchayat to determine their last drawn wages and to make payments to the respondents. 17. He, therefore, suggested an alternative that some lump-sum amount, instead of obligation of payment of last drawn wages under Section 17-B of the Act, may be granted. 18. Obviously this would be in addition to the cost which the respondents have had to incur to contest the reference proceedings as well as the proceedings relating to Misc. Applications and then present petition. 19. Mr. Gogia, learned Advocate, on this count, submitted that the respondents are in need of employment and that therefore even direction to make payment under Section 17-B of the Act would not be of much assistance to the workmen in the event this Court allows the petition. 20. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, (particularly in light of the fact that the petitioner panchayat has claimed that the concerned persons were not employed by it and were not in its employment, it appears that the said factual aspect needs to be examined and tested by the trial Court. 21. As such, in light of the inexcusable negligence shown by the concerned officers of the. petitioner panchayat it is difficult to take any other view but to not grant the relief as prayed for at this stage and require the panchayat to comply with the award. 22. 21. As such, in light of the inexcusable negligence shown by the concerned officers of the. petitioner panchayat it is difficult to take any other view but to not grant the relief as prayed for at this stage and require the panchayat to comply with the award. 22. However, it is only the aforesaid contention of the petitioner panchayat (viz., that the concerned persons were not in its employment at any point of time) which persuades this Court to allow another but last chance to the petitioner, though it is difficult to digest that as many as 11 persons without ever being in employment, would at the same time claim reinstatement by alleging illegal termination against the panchayat. A solitary or couple of such cases can be digested but to assume that such claims would be advanced by as many as 11 persons is not easily palatable. Nonetheless, the claim of the panchayat deserves to be tested by the trial Court. Since the said procedure would not be feasible in this Court it would be necessary to remand the proceedings to the Labour Court. 23. Since unconditional order setting aside, the order in Misc. Application and ex-parte award and remanding the matter would not be just and equitable to the respondent, this Court, therefore, offered four options to the panchayat as a condition for remanding the reference to the trial court after setting aside the ex-parte award and the order in Misc. Applications namely: (a) that the concerned persons may be reinstated at this stage, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, until the reference proceedings get concluded; (b) the last drawn wages be paid during the pendency of the reference proceedings, after remand; (c) to pay sufficient lump-sum amount in lieu of wages under the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act; (d) to continue to pay present minimum wages during the pendency of the reference proceedings upon remand (since the direction of reinstatement is already granted and the panchayat would otherwise be required to pay wages to the workmen). 24. Mr. 24. Mr. Munshaw, learned Advocate voiced his reservation as regards the first two options more particularly in view of the fact that this Court desired that the cost amount will have to be paid by the concerned officers (of course after due inquiry by which the responsibility of the concerned officer can be ascertained) and not by the panchayat because the Court is of the view that due to negligence of the concerned officers the public exchequer should not be burdened with the liability of the payment towards costs and the wages etc. 25. Mr. Munshaw, therefore, suggested that either third or fourth option may be passed. 26. Considering the facts and circumstances as discussed hereinabove, each of the workmen must be paid Rs. 4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred only) towards cost which would be non-refundable and non-adjustable towards any other payment. After such payment, the petitioner panchayat shall pay minimum wages prevailing as on January 2007 (i.e. the date on which the ex-parte award was passed) to each of the concerned workmen during the pendency of the reference proceedings, after remand. 26.1 The Panchayat shall hold inquiry to identify the officer-employee in charge at the relevant time and also determine the responsibility for not attending the proceedings and shall pass appropriate orders to recover panchayat’s financial burden from such officer-employee. 26.2 Further the petitioner panchayat shall not ask for any adjournments (except in rarest of rare case) and it shall also not cause any default in the aforesaid payment. The payment shall be made to the concerned workmen from January 2008 onwards (i.e. the date when the Court passed the order in Misc. Applications by treating the said order as the date on which the labour Court would have passed the order with these conditions. 27. Upon compliance of the aforesaid conditions, the order dated 08.01.2008 passed in Misc. Application No. 55 to 66 of 2007 in Reference (LCS) No. 65 of 2003 and the ex-parte award dated 23.01.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No. 65 of 2003 shall stand set aside. 28. 27. Upon compliance of the aforesaid conditions, the order dated 08.01.2008 passed in Misc. Application No. 55 to 66 of 2007 in Reference (LCS) No. 65 of 2003 and the ex-parte award dated 23.01.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No. 65 of 2003 shall stand set aside. 28. The Reference proceedings pertaining to Reference (LCS) No. 65 of 2003 shall stand remanded and restored to file and the Labour Court will proceed with and decide the reference in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-panchayat and the concerned workmen, however without being influenced by present order. The Labour Court will endeavour to complete the proceedings within a period of nine months from the date of the proceedings. 29. With the aforesaid clarifications and observations, the petitions are disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid in each of the petitions. No costs.