JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. The present petition is filed by Bal Vikas Yojana Adhikari along with Programme Officer ICDS, District Panchayat, Office of the District Panchayat, Amreli, being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 18.10.2005 passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court in Reference (LCA) No. 2 of 2003, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to order reinstatement of the workman with full back wages within 30 days from the publication of the award and was pleased to award Rs. 1,000/- as expenses to the applicant workman. 2. After this award was passed on 18.10.2005, the petitioners herein filed I.D. Misc. Application No. 10 of 2005 seeking review of the award. The review was sought on the ground that, “After the process was served, the petitioner had engaged an Advocate and that Advocate had told the concerned instructing officer/personnel that he may attend to his work which is very important and also useful to the society and as and when his presence is required, he will be intimated”. 3. Learned Judge of the Labour Court has considered this Misc.Application No. 10 of 2005 in detail and has then rejected the same by order dated 19.08.2006. Learned Judge of the Labour Court has recorded that, “Applicants (petitioners herein) have not approached the Court by filing review application with clean hands and therefore, they are not entitled to get any relief”. In this regard, learned Judge of the Labour Court has recorded in para-5 that, “The applicants have made averments in the application which are far from truth; that there is no cause available to the applicants for filing this application; that this application is not maintainable; that the submissions made by both the sides in this application is a matter of record”. Learned Judge of the Labour Court has then recorded that:- “The workman was terminated since 01.10.2002, the complaint was filed on 29.10.2002, conciliation proceedings took place, but the matter was not amicably settled and therefore, by order dated 01.02.2003, the matter was referred for adjudication. The workman was given time to produce statement of claim on 05.02.2003. Pursuant to that, the workman produced statement of claim Exh.5 on that very day, i.e. 05.02.2003. The establishment (petitioners herein) were granted time to file reply to the statement of claim up to 26.02.2003. The establishment then filed vakalatnana of learned Advocate Mr. The workman was given time to produce statement of claim on 05.02.2003. Pursuant to that, the workman produced statement of claim Exh.5 on that very day, i.e. 05.02.2003. The establishment (petitioners herein) were granted time to file reply to the statement of claim up to 26.02.2003. The establishment then filed vakalatnana of learned Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Mehta and asked for time to file reply. The time was granted and thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time, i.e. 26.03.2003, 03.05.2003, 03.07.2003, 06.08.2003, 25.08.2003, 23.12.2003, 05.01.2004, 12.03.2004, 02.04.2004, 26.04.2004, but still the establishment did not file any reply and therefore on 26.04.2004, right to file reply was closed and the deposition of the workman was recorded. His deposition is at Exh.21. After the deposition was over, there was nobody present from the establishment and therefore, its right to cross-examine was also closed. Thereafter, the establishment was given an opportunity to make submissions, but nobody appeared to make submissions on behalf of the establishment. Thus, the establishment continuously remained absent before the learned Judge of the Labour Court. On every date of hearing, adjournment was sought and the same was granted as far as it was possible. As the establishment chose not to file any reply, not to lead any oral evidence, not to produce any documentary evidence and only adjournment applications were given, that too without any reasonable cause for the same even after closure of right to file reply, there was no request from the establishment to reopen the right to file reply and only adjournments were sought for.” 3.1. In view of this, learned Judge of the Labour Court was pleased to record with pain that:- “In view of the aforesaid facts, to mention in the application for review that the establishment was not given reasonable and sufficient opportunity to defend its case is far from truth and contrary to the record.” 3.2. That is why the learned Judge of the Labour Court has stated that:- “The applicant has to approach the Court with clean hands and in view of the aforesaid averments in the application, the applicant has not approached the Court with clean hands.” 4. Coming to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the applicant was appointed by order dated 02.02.1991. Coming to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the applicant was appointed by order dated 02.02.1991. It is true that it is mentioned in the said appointment order that, “he is given appointment for four hours and will be paid Rs. 300/- at the rate of Rs. 75/- per hour and that his appointment is absolutely temporary and is liable to be terminated without any notice and that on appointment of regular peon, this appointment will come to an end automatically”. It is thereafter that for long 11 years, he was allowed to continue and as is set out by the workman, later on, his pay was raised to Rs. 900/- per month and he was asked to attend office for 8 hours instead of 4 hours which he was initially asked to work. It is thereafter that by oral order, on the ground that now two regular peons are appointed, his services were terminated. 5. This Court has to record with pain that, 'it is only on account of unpleasant situation in the employment market that the persons like the workman have to work like this and that too at the mercy of the persons who are in charge of the affairs'. After having put in service for more than a decade, one fine morning he is told not to come from tomorrow. Pushing not only him but his entire family to starvation is nothing but inhuman and illegal by all standards. Thereafter, a plea is advanced (not in the main matter) by filing a review application, that establishment is not allowed to defend its case and matter is decided ex parte, cannot and must not be entertained and is rightly not entertained by the learned Judge of the Labour Court. 5.1. Thereafter, a plea is advanced (not in the main matter) by filing a review application, that establishment is not allowed to defend its case and matter is decided ex parte, cannot and must not be entertained and is rightly not entertained by the learned Judge of the Labour Court. 5.1. This Court feels that it is the duty of the Court to put it on record that it is a regular experience of this Court that, 'be it a Government organization or a private respondent, they take the Labour Court proceedings for granted; they behave in the same manner in which this matter the petitioners have behaved; they do not attend the proceedings; they do not produce any material before the learned Judge of the Labour Court; they do not render any assistance to the learned Judge of the Labour Court and take a stand, either by way of review application or by way of petition before the higher Forum, that the order passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court is required to be set to naught, as it is passed ex parte'. If this petition is entertained, it will amount to encouraging this conduct of the employer, which happens to be a Government organization and will send a wrong message to the society that, 'proceedings before the learned Judge of the Labour Court are mere formalities and you can contest the matter in High Court by engaging legal experts without even causing one single appearance before the learned Judge of the Labour Court for years together'. 5.2. What is important to remember in such situation is, 'the plight of the workman', who approached the Labour Court by way of a Reference in the year 2002 and the award is declared in 2005. It is good that in this case, it was only three years, otherwise this period is normally longer and longer to an extent of a decade. So for all these years, the workman is left high and dry at the mercy of the Almighty to survive with his family, which may consist of minor children, aged parents and a poor wife, poor because she married to a person who got job and it then thrown out of job by oral order like in the present case. So for all these years, the workman is left high and dry at the mercy of the Almighty to survive with his family, which may consist of minor children, aged parents and a poor wife, poor because she married to a person who got job and it then thrown out of job by oral order like in the present case. That being so, this Court is of the opinion that judgment and award passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. The petition is without any merit because of the aforesaid conduct of the establishment. 5.3. This Court is of the opinion that if at all the establishment has to seek any relief, it is to be sought by filing appropriate proceedings against the erring officers and the erring Advocate due to whom, the matter was not defended before the learned Judge of the Labour Court, despite the fact that the learned Judge of the Labour Court gave more than a dozen opportunities to file reply to the statement of claim of the workman to cross-examine him, to make submissions. All these dates are set out by the learned Judge of the Labour Court in para-5 of the order in review application. 6. In the result, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to reinstate the respondent workman as early as possible but not later than 31.03.2014 so that for the workman after so many years, new financial year starts with getting fruits of the prolonged litigation. Rule is discharged. Ad interim relief granted earlier is vacated. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.