JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 11.1.2002 passed by the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 26/2000, by which the issues raised vide Govt. notification dated 14.12.2000 have been answered against the workmen. Being aggrieved by the said award, which was ex-parte, the concerned workmen had filed an application registered as Misc. Case No. 3/2003 on 1.1.2003 for setting aside the said exparte award. However, the said application was also dismissed by order dated 2.6.2003. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition. The issues which were referred for adjudication are as follows:- (1) Whether the management of Naharhabi Tea Estate, Kukwa, P.O. Lukwa, dist.- Sivsagar were justified in dismissing the services of Sarvashree (1) Jiten Bhumiz, (2) Sonia Bowri, (3) Bipin Kumar, (4) Devanti Dusad, (5) Kecha bati Kumar, (6) D.K. Ghatowar, (7) Pradip Bhuyan, (8) Shyam Mirdha and (9) Sulachan Kmarmakar with effect from 31.12.99 ? (2) If not, are the workers entitled to reinstatement with full back wages or any other relief in lieu thereof ? 2. Admittedly, neither in the domestic enquiry nor in the proceeding before the learned Labour Court, the workmen had participated. While in the domestic enquiry, the concerned workmen did not at all participate but in the proceeding before the learned Labour Court, while they initially appeared but later on there was no representation on their behalf. Situated thus, both the proceedings i.e. the domestic enquiry proceeding and the Labour Court proceeding proceeded exparte with the exparte final orders. 3. I have heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the workmen as well as Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent management (respondent No. 1). 4. Referring to the stand in the writ petition that the workmen were not provided with the adequate opportunity of being heard, Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that since the charge sheet was in English version, the concerned workmen ought to have been provided with Assamese version of the same, more particularly, when they had prayed for the same. In this connection, he has referred to the purported applications annexed to the reply affidavit, by which some of the workmen had prayed for Assamese version of the charge sheet. However, on perusal of the said applications, names of only two petitioners are discernible. In this connection, he has referred to the purported applications annexed to the reply affidavit, by which some of the workmen had prayed for Assamese version of the charge sheet. However, on perusal of the said applications, names of only two petitioners are discernible. Moreover, on perusal of the records, it appears that in the domestic enquiry, the petitioner No. 8 declined to accept the notice. 5. According to Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioners, since the workmen were not furnished with Assamese version of the charge sheet, they could not participate in the enquiry proceeding. As regards non-appearance of the workmen in the proceeding before the learned Labour Court, he submits that during the course of the proceeding the Secretary of the Union expired on 17.12.2001 and the workmen were not aware of the date and particulars of the reference. Consequently, they could not take any steps in the proceeding before the learned Labour Court. According to Mr. Bhowmik, in such circumstances, both the impugned orders i.e. the award and the order declining to set aside the exparte order, are required to be interfered with. 6. Countering the above arguments, Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel representing the respondent No. 1, submits that the aforesaid plea of the workmen is not at all tenable in law. He submits that apart from the fact that out of the 9 workmen, only 2 had signed the purported applications praying for Assamese version of the charge sheet, the said plea is also not sustainable in law. He submits that the charge sheet having been issued on 27.7.99 and the applications purportedly submitted by the concerned workmen being dated 21.9.99 and 6.11.99, even otherwise also, the prayer made in the said two applications could not have been acceded to by the Inquiry Officer as in the mean time the enquiry had commenced. Moreover, the same did not preclude the workmen from participation in the enquiry. 7. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 further submits that there is no question of setting aside the order dated 2.6.2003 passed in MC 3/2003 declining to set aside the exparte award on the basis of the reasons stated therein. He further submits that the said application having been filed on 1.1.2003, there was delay of more than a year and thus was not maintainable. He further submits that the said application having been filed on 1.1.2003, there was delay of more than a year and thus was not maintainable. He submits that although, there is no statutory provision for entertaining an application seeking setting aside of the exparte award but in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, such application although, entertainable but must be filed within 30 days. In this connection, he has referred to the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2005) 9 SCC 335 (R. Sulochana Devi vs. D.M. Sujatha and others). 8. Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel appearing for the management (respondent No. 1) further submits that going by the seriousness of the misconduct attributed to the workmen, which was also established in the domestic enquiry, this Court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not sit on appeal over the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry and so also by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire materials on record including the LCR. 10. The charge against the workmen was that of being violence in the factory premises and killing the Gate Chowkidar by lethal weapons. For a ready reference, the charge against the workmen is reproduced below:- It has been allegedly reported against you that on 10.7.99 around 9 A.M. you alongwith others gathered outside the factory main gate with lethal weapon and shouting 'Kat Dega, Mar Dega, Paisa Lao' and injured the gate Chowkidar by lethal weapon on head who was trying to check your violent intrusion and despite lot of persuasion and reasoning by executive, union people and security people, you broke open the gate and C.I. Sheet protector of sides and rushed to main office pelting bricks, stones and ransacking window panes and window of Manager and garden office, even in front of office premises you were asked to come to your senses but to no avail. The Police Officer who reached to the office failed to prevent you from vandalizing the Manager's Jeep, Window panes, window, doors, grills etc. and in front of executive staff you insisted "Bahar Ao, Tukra Tukra Karenga, Kisiko nahin Chorenge" and again at this Shri T. Borgohain, Asstt. The Police Officer who reached to the office failed to prevent you from vandalizing the Manager's Jeep, Window panes, window, doors, grills etc. and in front of executive staff you insisted "Bahar Ao, Tukra Tukra Karenga, Kisiko nahin Chorenge" and again at this Shri T. Borgohain, Asstt. Manager got a heavy stone hit on his head hurled by some of you and he dropped on the floor bleeding profusely, even then you did not came to your senses and due to this riotous conduct three causalities occurred and Garden was put under lockout, the property was damaged and workers, staff had to incur financial losses and had to suffer mental and physical stress and trauma. In view of above tragic incident and your alleged involvement amounts to gross misconducts where you have violated Clause No. 14(1), (7), (8) and (11) of the Company's Standing Orders. You are hereby given an opportunity to submit your written explanation within three days time as to why strict disciplinary action should not be taken against you as per the aforesaid section of the Company's Standing Orders. Should you fail to submit your written explanation within stipulated time, it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer in your defence and the Company will take further action on the matter. Since the charges leveled against you are of very serious in nature which, if proved, would warrant strict disciplinary action, hence you are hereby suspended from your work with immediately effect (27.7.00) pending enquiry and final decision. 11. As to what is the reason for not responding to the enquiry proceeding has been noted above. Apart from the fact that it is not that all the workmen had pleaded for furnishing the Assamese version of the charge sheet, some of the workmen did not even ask for the same and one workman even declined to accept the notice. Apart from the said position, even if it is assumed that all the workmen, had in fact, prayed for furnishing the Assamese version of the charge sheet and the same was not acceded to, that by itself cannot be a ground for non-participation in the domestic enquiry. As pointed out above, the charge sheet is dated 26.7.99 and the applications made by the workmen are dated 21.9.99 and 6.11.99. As pointed out above, the charge sheet is dated 26.7.99 and the applications made by the workmen are dated 21.9.99 and 6.11.99. On the other hand, they were directed to furnish their written explanation within the stipulated period of time as indicated in the charge sheet much before the said applications. Thus, there was no immediate response of the workmen to the charge leveled against them. It was only after expiry of 2/4 months, the workmen had allegedly prayed for furnishing the Assamese version of the charge sheet. 12. It is not a case of non-furnishing of charge sheet to the workmen. The workmen had contended that they should have been furnished with the Assamese version of the charge sheet. It was not the case of the workmen that there was nothing in the garden area. Moreover, the atmosphere of the garden area was surcharged with tension after the killing of the persons. Having regard to the accusation made against the workmen, the charge was known to them and accordingly they ought to have participated in the domestic enquiry to prove their innocence. They having failed to do so, they are now precluded from raising grievance against the exparte proceedings only on the ground of non-furnishing of the translated copy (Assamese) of the charge sheet (English). They could have also easily prayed for the same during the enquiry proceeding. 13. In the domestic enquiry, the Inquiry Officer examined the evidence available on record and thereafter came to the conclusion that the charge leveled against the workmen stood established in the enquiry. Accordingly, the management after observing the due formalities dismissed the workmen from service, making a grievance against which they had raised the Industrial Dispute in response to which the Govt. had referred the aforesaid two issues for adjudication by the learned Labour Court. 14. The learned Labour Court by its impugned award dated 11.1.2002 has held that the workmen being involved in serious crime leading to killing of innocent people, the management was within its competence and jurisdiction to hold the domestic enquiry. It has also been held that having regard to the nature of the misconduct attributed and proved against the workmen, the punishment imposed was not alterable under Section 11(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 15. It has also been held that having regard to the nature of the misconduct attributed and proved against the workmen, the punishment imposed was not alterable under Section 11(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 15. In the award, the learned Labour Court has discussed in detail the entire evidence on record and thereafter recorded its own findings while declining to interfere with the penalty of dismissal from service, imposed on the workmen. I see no reason to interfere with the said award. 16. As noted above, the impugned award had to be passed exparte, inasmuch as, after initial participation in the proceeding thereof. There was no representation on behalf of the workmen. In the application as was submitted on 1.1.2003 seeking setting aside of the exparte award, it was contended that the Secretary of the Union expired on 17.12.2001 and the workmen were not aware of the date and particulars of the reference and as such, they could not take any steps in the matter. However, there is absolutely no explanation as to what prevented them from making the application within the prescribed time limit of one month instead of waiting for more than one year. 17. In R. Sulochana Devi (Supra), it has been held by the Apex Court in reference to its earlier decision reported in (1980) Supp SCC 420 (Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal), that an application for setting aside an exparte award must be filed before expiry of 30 days from the date of the award. In the instant case, after passing of the award, the workmen sat over the matter well over one year and thereafter filed the application. On that score alone, the application was not maintainable. However, the learned Labour Court entertained the same by its reasoned order rejecting the said application, the same being devoid of any merit. 18. Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has also placed reliance on the order dated 3.4.2013 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5050/2005 (Usha Bhumij & other vs. Management of Naharhabi Tea Estate), in which under somewhat similar circumstances, the award passed by the learned Labour Court was not interfered with. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their costs. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their costs. The Registry is directed to send down the case records along with the copy of this judgment and order.