JUDGMENT : Sonia Gokani, J. 1. This group of petitions are being decided by a common oral judgment. Facts are being taken from Special Civil Application No. 24529 of 2007. 2. The challenge here is made to the award passed on 25.1.2006 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Surendranagar, in Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2004, where restoration of Recovery Application Nos. 348 of 2010 to Recovery Application No. 353 of 2001 had been sought where the Court directed the payment of Rs. 26,709/- to each of the respondents towards wages by recovery certificate of the Collector which led to this group of petitions. 3. The respondents were working with the petitioner on adhoc and daily wage basis for repair and maintenance work. It is the say of the petitioner that upon availability of the work and the funds, they were being provided the work. 4. When the respondents were not offered the work, they approached the Labour Court, Surendranagar by preferring Labour Court Reference No. 1255 to 1260 of 1989 as well as Reference LCS No. 164 of 1989. These references, since were decided ex-parte in favour of the respondent workmen, Special Civil Application No. 4680 of 1995 and allied matters were preferred before this Court. Those petitions were decided on 14.7.1995, whereby the Court made a slight modification in the award. 5. The respondent approached the Labour Court at Surendranagar, by preferring Recovery Application Nos. 510 of 1994 to 515 of 1994. They were decided in favour of the present respondents. Vide order dated 30.10.1996, the respondents were directed to be paid Rs. 21,618/- each. They also preferred Recovery Application Nos. 90 to 95 of 1997. They too were allowed ex-parte. Recovery Application Nos. 348 to 353 of 2001 were preferred by respondents before the Labour Court, Surendranagar. By ex-parte order, on 13.3.2003, they were directed payment of Rs. 27,709/- including cost of Rs. 25/- each to each of the respondents. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner had approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 1295 of 2004, however, the same was withdrawn to file Miscellaneous Application before the Labour Court. 7. Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2004 was preferred with a prayer to allow restoration of Recovery Application Nos. 348 to 353 of 2001. Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Surendranagar, vide order dated 25.1.2006 rejected the Miscellaneous Application and hence this petition. 8. 7. Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2004 was preferred with a prayer to allow restoration of Recovery Application Nos. 348 to 353 of 2001. Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Surendranagar, vide order dated 25.1.2006 rejected the Miscellaneous Application and hence this petition. 8. It is the say of the petitioner that in the last 20 to 25 years, the respondents have not worked and they were not even entitled to any wages. As per the direction of this Court, they were to be provided work upon the seniority as on 22.5.1989 depending upon the availability of the work. Accordingly, this petition is preferred with following prayers: "7. The applicants, therefore, most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to :- (a) admit the present Special Civil Application. (g) allow this Special Civil Application by way of issuing appropriate writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the Order dated 25.1.2006 passed by Hon'ble Labour Court at Surendranagar in Misc. Application No. 10/04 annexed as ANNEXURE Gas well as order dated 13.3.03 passed by the Hon'ble Labour Court at Surendranagar in Recovery Application No. 348/01 to 353/01 annexed at ANNEXURED by way of holding that the same are illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and evidence on record and contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and well settled legal position. (h) grant interim relief pending the admission, final hearing and disposal of the present Special Civil Application by way of staying the implementation, execution and operation of the Order dated 25.1.2006 passed by Hon'ble Labour Court at Surendranagar in Misc. Application No. 10/04 annexed as ANNEXUREG as well as order dated 13.3.03 passed by the Hon'ble Labour Court at Surendnranagar in Recovery Application No. 348/01 to 353/01 annexed as ANNEXURED. (i) pass such other and further orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require, in the interest of justice." 9. Thus, what has been sought is to quash and set aside the orders dated 25.1.2006 and 13.3.2003 of the Labour Court, Surendranagar. 10. This Court has heard learned advocates for the parties and also learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent District Collector, Surendranagar. This Court has noted the details of the respondents, who were working as daily wagers with the petitioner. 10. This Court has heard learned advocates for the parties and also learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent District Collector, Surendranagar. This Court has noted the details of the respondents, who were working as daily wagers with the petitioner. They preferred Reference (LCS) No. 1255 of 1989 to 1260 of 1989 and 164 of 1990. All these References ended in passing the award dated 10.5.1994, which was also published on 10.8.1994. Learned Presiding Officer also specified that though implementation of such award and order was made from 1.1.1995 to 31.1.1997, the respondents were held entitled to the wages and for that period, the Court awarded Rs. 28,984/- to each of them. The petitioner herein was issued the notice. It choose not to file its objection or reply. The petitioner's right also was closed by the Court by an express order. The recovery applications culminated into passing of an order dated 30.10.1996 and the Court directed issuance of the Recovery Certificate for outstanding wages from 1.1.1995 to 31.1.1997. 11. The Court also further reiterated that though the notice has been once again sent vide Exh.10 nobody remained present. Many opportunities were made available for the petitioners, however, it continued to be indolent. Its right also had been closed and after hearing the representatives of the respondents, the Court noticed that neither any oral nor any documentary evidence had been adduced nor was any contention raised by the petitioner herein. The award of the Court also was not implemented. In absence of any material before the Court, it concluded that from the period 1.1.1995 to 31.1.1997, each respondent was entitled to the sum of Rs. 27,684/- and the certificate was directed to be issued. It is necessary to mention, at this stage, that against the order and award passed in the year 1994, Special Civil Application No. 4680 of 1995, 5168, 5169 and 5170 of 1995 had been preferred. All these petitions since were arising from a common order and award in number of the References, which were made before the Labour Court, this Court on 14.7.1995 upheld the major portion of the award. However, it clarified that the workers would be entitled to revise seniority from 22.5.1989 to be assigned work on the same basis and same terms as they were assigned prior to the Reference. However, it clarified that the workers would be entitled to revise seniority from 22.5.1989 to be assigned work on the same basis and same terms as they were assigned prior to the Reference. Common order dated 14.7.1995 passed by this Court (Coram: Y.B. Bhatt, as he then was) is reproduced as under: "1. These four petitions arises from a common judgment and award in a number of references, decided by the Labour Court, Surendranagar at Ahmedabad to the petition. 2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that the final order passed in the award is not sufficiently clear and/or not set aside of being misunderstanding, and/or being misinterpreted. In the light of observations made in the award and in the light of the final finding of fact recorded therein on the basis of which the Labour Court has given final directions. 3. I have been taken through the relevant finding of fact, as also the conclusions drawn by the Labour Court in the impugned award on the basis of the material on record before it. Looking to such findings of fact and looking to the phraseology used while recording the conclusions, and looking to the phraseology used in the operative part of the order, it is possible that the operative part of the award may be misunderstood. In any case, the operative part of the award is not sufficiently clear looking to the final conclusion drawn in the substantive part of the award. 4. It is, therefore, clarified that the concerned workers shall be entitled, with reference to their seniority on 22nd May 1989, to be assigned work on the same basis and on the same terms as they were assigned prior to the Reference. In other words, with reference to the aforesaid date of Seniority, they shall be offered work as daily wager on such road building or road repair work, as the circumstances may require, on the dates and place where such work is available, and where the concerned workmen are required. 5. No other point is urged. These petitions are, therefore, disposed of on the basis of the aforesaid clarification. Notice is discharge in each of the petition with no order as to costs." 12. 5. No other point is urged. These petitions are, therefore, disposed of on the basis of the aforesaid clarification. Notice is discharge in each of the petition with no order as to costs." 12. Thus, it is quite apparent that the award on 10.5.1994 which was published on 10.8.1994 was otherwise upheld by this Court when challenged by the petitioner. It was, of course, clarified in the said order passed in Special Civil Application No. 4680 of 1995 and allied matters to assign the work as per the seniority fixed on 22.5.1989, so their work of daily wager would continue. It appears that two recovery applications came to be preferred being Recovery Application No. 510 to 515 of 1994 which was decided on 30.10.1996 and Recovery Application Nos. 90 to 95 of 1997 which came to be decided on 17.3.2001. Both the Courts permitted recovery certificate to the tune of Rs. 21,618/- and Rs. 27,684/- respectively and another Recovery Application No. 348 to 353 of 2001 also had been preferred where the amount of recovery certificate was to the tune of Rs. 27,709/- which came to be granted on 13.3.2003. The petitioner when approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 1295 of 2004 while permitting withdrawal, it also directed the DDO, District Panchayat, Surendranagar, to enquire into the careless and callous attitude of the concerned officer and to take action against erring officer. They ensured to approach the Labour Court seeking to set aside the ex-parte order. Accordingly Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2004 was preferred by giving detailed history and reasons. The Labour Court held that, at no stage, any one had remained present from the petitioner's side despite the due service of notice. The Court did not allow the application of the petitioner and order passed by it on 13.3.2004 in Recovery Application Nos. 348 to 358 of 2001, hold the field. The Court notices that after once the recovery application was filed, the notice was issued. Nobody remained present from the petitioner's side neither any contention or defence was raised nor any representation was made, much less the submissions at the time of hearing and this despite the best of the opportunities made available to the petitioner, when it continued to be under a deep slumber, the Court found no justification in allowing the application. 13. Nobody remained present from the petitioner's side neither any contention or defence was raised nor any representation was made, much less the submissions at the time of hearing and this despite the best of the opportunities made available to the petitioner, when it continued to be under a deep slumber, the Court found no justification in allowing the application. 13. This Court finds no reason at all to interfere with as it can be noticed that in Special Civil Application No. 1295 of 2004 already challenge had been made noticing that the Recovery Application Nos. 348 to 353 of 2001 as well as Recovery Application Nos. 510 to 514 of 1994 were sought to be interfered with. However, the Court declined to interfere, and therefore, the petition was withdrawn with a view to approach the Labour Court. 14. On specific query raised by this Court, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, he has no instruction whether any steps have been taken against any erring officer as directed by this Court on 3.2.2004 in Special Civil Application No. 1295 of 2004. It is quite shocking to notice that not only at the time of passing of the award but thereafter thrice, recovery applications have been moved seeking certificate and yet on one hand challenging the award before this Court and getting the clarification that the respondents shall continue to have work on daily wages and shall be given, as per the seniority, the work as and when available, at no stage, the petitioner bothered to remain present before the competent Labour Court and objected to any of the proceedings. They have sought to challenge before this Court the rejection of request of the Labour Court to quash and set aside certificates issued lastly in the Recovery Application Nos. 348 to 353 of 2001. No ground is made out for any interference. 15. On the contrary, the Court is of the opinion that on one hand by not seeking the award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner which is a statutory authority has shown its disregard to the award and the order and thereafter by continuing its indolent and callous attitude by not remaining present before the Court concerned, it has chosen to wake up from its slumber after a long period. On none of the grounds, these petitions deserve to be allowed. The award shall be implemented within four weeks. On none of the grounds, these petitions deserve to be allowed. The award shall be implemented within four weeks. The recovery certificate if not already issued by the District Collector, Surendranagar, he shall ensure the recovery within a shortest time. The cost of respondents shall be paid by the petitioners as drawn by the Registry. Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged.