Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 764 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Vishnu Dutt Sharma

2017-03-21

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. The petitioner State has come against the ex-parte award passed by the ld. Labour court Jaipur dated 27.09.1994 whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the respondent as well as against the order dated 14.09.1995 passed by the ld. Labour Court whereby the application moved by the State Government for setting aside ex-parte order under Rule 22 A (2) has been rejected. 2. The brief facts for disposal of the present petition are that the respondent was posted as a Home Guard by the directions of the Home Guard Department at S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. He was performing his duties and thereafter, was relieved. Against the relieving order, the respondent No. 1 filed a Civil Suit wherein the application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 was rejected vide order dated 26.07.1991. It appears that thereafter, the concerned respondent filed conciliation proceedings, upon failure thereof, reference was made to the Labour Court. It is a case of the petitioner State that the award was passed ex-parte against the state and it could not come in the knowledge of the Labour Court that the respondent No.1 is not a workman and was working as a Home Guard and had been appointed in terms of the directions issued by the Home Guard Department. It is also a case of the petitioner-state that as soon as they came to the knowledge of passing of the ex-parte award, they immediately moved application for setting aside ex-parte award, but the same was rejected. 3. The plea of the petitioners was that the case file relating to the present case was mixed up with another file of civil suit for temporary injunction, the case could not have been attended. The ld. Labour Court has, however, not accepted such a plea and has rejected the application mainly on the ground that the application has been moved with a delay of more than 15 days. 4. Having considered the submissions of both the parties and taking into consideration that the State Government could not be prevented from defending their case due to genuine reasons and also taking into consideration that as soon as the State Government came to the knowledge of passing the award, it moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte award. 4. Having considered the submissions of both the parties and taking into consideration that the State Government could not be prevented from defending their case due to genuine reasons and also taking into consideration that as soon as the State Government came to the knowledge of passing the award, it moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte award. Therefore, the order dated 14.09.1995 cannot be allowed to be sustained and I find that the Ld. Labour Court has heard and rejecting the application moved under Order 22A (2) on technical ground of filing the same almost after 15 days specially when the reasons have been mentioned by the petitioners in their application itself for the delay in moving the application. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has sited one judgment of this court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Deptt., Bundi v. Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Kota reported in 1994 (2) WLC 455 in order to submit that the ex-parte award could not have been set-aside as award has already been published in the Official Gazette on 20.12.1994 and as such, the impugned order has been rightly passed. 6. This court find facts that the said judgment could not apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case, petitioner State came to the knowledge of the ex-parte award on 28.12.1994 after the same was published in the official Gazette on 20.12.1994, whereas in the case cited above, the application was moved after more than four months. 7. This court is of considered view that for any genuine reasons if a particular party is prevented from appearing before the court, he should be given an opportunity to defend himself. Once he moves an appropriate application for the setting aside the ex-parte award, it is settled principle of jurisprudence that the justice should not only be done, but it seem to be done. 8. In view of the above, the order dated 14.09.1995 as well as the award dated 27.09.1994 which had already been stayed by this court while admitting this petition, are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court to decide the matter afresh. 8. In view of the above, the order dated 14.09.1995 as well as the award dated 27.09.1994 which had already been stayed by this court while admitting this petition, are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court to decide the matter afresh. Taking into consideration that the case has been pending for decades now, it would be appropriate that directions are issued to the Labour Court to decide the matter within a period of six months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.