ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following prayers: “(A) xxx xxx xxx (B) Pending hearing and admission of the petition; Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent no.2; Mamlatdar Alien Recovery; not to take any coercive steps against petitioner. (C) Pending hearing and admission of the petition; Hon’ble Court may be pleased to Stay the implementation and execution of impugned order dated 7.05.2005 passed in Ref. (LCS) No.884/99; granting reinstatement to respondent on original post with 100% back wages for seven years; for the period of from 26.08.98 (date of alleged termination) till 7.05.20005 (date of Award) - Rs. 3,77,609/- and subsequent orders passed in Recovery Applications. (D) Yours Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order holding and declaring that the impugned award dated 7.05.2005 in Ref. (LCS) No. 884/99 granting reinstatement on original post with 100% back wages for seven years; for the period of from 26.08.98 (date of alleged termination) till 7.05.20005 (date of Award) - Rs. 3,77,609/- is violative of Article 14 & 19(1)(g) and is required to be quashed and set aside. (At Annexure-A) (E) Yours Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 7.05.2005 passed in Ref. (LCS) No. 884/99 and order dated 24.04.2009 passed in Recovery Application No.8/06 in Ref. (LCS) No. 884/99 for recovery of Rs. 3,77,609/-, order dated 7.08.2013 passed in Recovery Application No.38/09 in Ref. (LCS) No. 884/99 for recovery of Rs. 1,73,175/-, order dated 11.03.2016, passed in Recovery Application No.515/13 in Ref. (LCS) No. 884/99 for recovery of Rs. 1,53,675/- and order dated 14.02.2018 passed in Recovery Application No.69 of 2016 in Ref. (LCS) No. 884/99 for recovery of Rs. 1,19,875/- and respective Recovery Certificates. (At Annexure- B to E)” 2. As the prayer clause suggests the petitioner has challenged the award dated 07.05.2005 passed in Reference (LCS) No.884 of 1999 by the Labour Court, Surat and the subsequent orders Recovery Applications. (LCS) No. 884/99 for recovery of Rs. 1,19,875/- and respective Recovery Certificates. (At Annexure- B to E)” 2. As the prayer clause suggests the petitioner has challenged the award dated 07.05.2005 passed in Reference (LCS) No.884 of 1999 by the Labour Court, Surat and the subsequent orders Recovery Applications. Thus, after a period of 16 years, the petitioner, all of a sudden waking up from slumber, has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the same is an ex-parte and the subsequent orders passed in the Recovery Applications filed by the respondent workman are also challenged. 2.1 On 03.11.2020, in the present writ petition this Court has passed the following order: “When the matter is taken up for hearing, Ms. Yogini Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioner has earnestly requested to issue notice for the purpose of compromise as there is a chance of overall resolution. Considering this request, Notice only for the purpose of compromise, returnable on 04.12.2020. Direct service is permitted.” 2.2 Thus, the notice was issued only for the purpose of compromise. Thereafter, on 05.08.2021, when the matter was taken up, the submissions made by the learned advocate for the respondent workman was recorded by this Court, wherein he has stated that as per his calculations, the outstanding amount would be around Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.9,00,000/-. In order to see that any settlement is arrived at between the parties, the matter was adjourned and it was observed that if no settlement is arrived at by the next date of hearing, the matter will be examined on merits. 2.3 Today, it is informed by the learned advocates for the respective parties that no settlement has been arrived. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the award dated 07.05.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference (LCS) No.884 of 1999 however, she is aggrieved by the further orders passed in the Recovery Applications. It is submitted by her that the orders passed in the Recovery Applications, pursuant to the impugned award, are ex-parte orders and the same are passed without hearing the petitioner. It is submitted that even the initial award, which was passed, was also ex-parte and no notice was served upon the petitioner. It is submitted by her that the orders passed in the Recovery Applications, pursuant to the impugned award, are ex-parte orders and the same are passed without hearing the petitioner. It is submitted that even the initial award, which was passed, was also ex-parte and no notice was served upon the petitioner. She has further submitted that because of the fault of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner before the Labour Court, Surat, ex-parte award was passed and thereafter also, at the time of subsequent Recovery Applications, the petitioner was not informed and the same are passed ex-parte. It is also submitted by her that the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.8257 of 2016, wherein the petitioner had deposited Rs.75,000/- i.e. 50% of the amount directed by this Court and the said petition was withdrawn by the respondent-workman with consent of the petitioner and the matter could not be proceeded further as the settlement talks were going-on. She has submitted that thereafter, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and the restoration application restoring the Special Civil Application No.8257 of 2016 was also not filed and thereafter, successive Recovery Application was filed by the respondent-workman and it is submitted that the Labour Court has erroneously and arbitrarily, by exceeding its jurisdiction and going beyond the power, granted relief under Section 33(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the I.D. Act), by passing the impugned award as well as the orders in the Recovery Applications for granting the amount of wages. It is submitted that the Labour Court has fallen in error by passing ex-parte award dated 07.05.2005 directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman on the original post with 100% back wages for seven years. 3.1 While placing reliance on the provision of Section 33(C) of the Act, it is submitted that the Labour Court could not have entertained such application after limitation period of one year and it would be time barred. Further, reliance has been placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner on various decisions of the Apex Court in this regard in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Further, reliance has been placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner on various decisions of the Apex Court in this regard in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Katiji, 1987(2) S.C.C. 107 order dated 26.04.2016 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.16532 of 2015, decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.1624 of 2015 dated 30.01.2015 in the case of Randhir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mahabir Prosad Choudhary Vs. Octavius Tea and Industries Ltd. passed in Civil Appeal No.8320 of 2011 dated 04.12.2018 ( AIR 2019 SC 471 ), decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court 1997 (2) ALT 189 in the case of Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nirmal Depot Vs. K. Gangadhar, Ex-conductor, decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brijpalsingh (Civil Appeal No.5910 of 2005) decided on 27.09.2005 reported in 2005 (8) SCC 58 . Thus, she has submitted that the impugned award and orders passed in subsequent Recovery Applications may be quashed and set aside. 4. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.M.V.Patel has submitted that the notice in the present writ petition was only issued for the purpose of compromise and since the workman is not paid the outstanding amount approximately Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.9,00,000/-, the present writ petition may not be entertained. He has submitted that the petition has been filed after 16 years challenging the award dated 07.05.2005 and since the same was not complied with, the respondent workman was compelled to file the Recovery Applications. 5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them. 6. The facts, as narrated hereinabove, imply the obstinate attitude of the petitioner in ignoring the proceedings of the court of law. Since the workman raised the industrial dispute against his illegal termination, the same was referred to the Labour Court, Surat on 03.06.1999. The petitioner had also engaged an advocate representing his case before the Labour Court and the award reflects that no reply was filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court. It also reflects that the concerned advocate had given purshis vide Exh.11 of his retirement from the matter and accordingly, he has also informed the petitioner through Registered Post A.D., which was executed on 18.11.2001. It also reflects that the concerned advocate had given purshis vide Exh.11 of his retirement from the matter and accordingly, he has also informed the petitioner through Registered Post A.D., which was executed on 18.11.2001. Thereafter, further proceedings were undertaken however, the petitioner ignored such proceedings and ultimately, by the award dated 07.05.2005, the Labour Court, Surat directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with back wages and consequential benefits of the original post. It appears that since nothing was done, the respondent-workman was constrained to file Recovery Application No.8 of 2006 before the Labour Court, Surat and vide order dated 24.04.2009, the petitioner was directed to pay amount of Rs.3,77,609/- and accordingly, the recovery certificate was also issued. It is pertinent to note that the said recovery application has been filed within one year from the publication of award. The award was published on 17.06.2005. The said recovery application was allowed vide order dated 24.04.2009 and amount of Rs.3,77,609/- was determined. A perusal of the order dated 24.04.2009 reveals that despite the petitioner was intimated to comply with the award, the petitioner neither complied with the award nor the petition did care to appear before the Presiding Officer. Accordingly, in view of the direction issued vide order dated 24.04.2009, a recovery certificate was issued. It is pertinent to note that in the order, it is specifically observed that though the petitioner was intimated and notice was served, the petitioner did not bother to respond to such proceedings and hence, the authority was constrained to pass the order. 7. Since the aforesaid order was not complied, and the respondent-workman was not paid anything, he filed Recovery Application No.38 of 2009 for recovery of Rs.1,73,175/-, for wages for the period from 01.03.2006 to 31.08.2009. A Notice was also sent to the petitioner by the authority, and after considering the bailiff report, it was observed that the petitioner was served. The petitioner did not care to appear in these proceedings also. Hence, vide order dated 07.08.2013, the application was allowed and an amount of Rs.1,13,175/- was determined. 8. Since, the petitioner kept on ignoring the orders passed by the Labour Court, the respondent was once again constrained to file recovery application. The petitioner did not care to appear in these proceedings also. Hence, vide order dated 07.08.2013, the application was allowed and an amount of Rs.1,13,175/- was determined. 8. Since, the petitioner kept on ignoring the orders passed by the Labour Court, the respondent was once again constrained to file recovery application. Another Recovery Application No.515 of 2013 was filed by the respondent workman for recovering the amount of Rs.1,53,675/-, as the orders were not complied with and by the order dated 11.03.2016, the Labour Court, Surat allowed the same and directed the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.1,53,675/-. 9. Since that was also not complied with, the respondent-workman filed Recovery Application No.69 of 2016 vide Exh.12 and by the order dated 14.02.2018, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to pay wages to the respondent-workman from 01.10.2013 to 30.04.2016 along with bonus thus, the total amount, which was directed to pay to the respondent-workman, was Rs.1,19,875/-. 10. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.8257 of 2016 challenging the Recovery Application and by the order dated 14.03.2017, this Court, while recording submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner that they are ready and willing to pay 50% of the amount under the recovery to the respondent workman and accordingly, the petitioner was directed to disburse such amount by account payee cheque to the respondent workman after due verification. The matter was adjourned on 28.03.2017 to enable the parties for further communication and settlement. The aforesaid writ petition thereafter, was dismissed for default. Thus, the recovery orders had become final, after the matter was dismissed for default vide order dated 27.06.2018 and after all these proceedings, the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition challenging all these initial awards passed in the year 2005 as well as the subsequent Recovery Applications. 11. As noticed hereinabove, this Court had granted time to the petitioner to arrive at compromise with the respondent-workman however, despite various orders and dismissal of the writ petition, no compromise has been arrived at. 11. As noticed hereinabove, this Court had granted time to the petitioner to arrive at compromise with the respondent-workman however, despite various orders and dismissal of the writ petition, no compromise has been arrived at. It is not in dispute that the workman was terminated in the August, 1998 and by the award dated 07.05.2005 passed in Reference (LCS) No.884 of 1999, his termination was declared as illegal and same was set aside by the Labour Court, Surat by directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman within a period of 30 days, after publication of the award. 12. Today, almost 16 years have passed and the respondent-workman is yet to enjoy the fruits of his litigation due to the recalcitrant attitude of the petitioner towards all the aforementioned proceedings the orders passed by the Court of law. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the recovery proceedings are filed beyond the period of limitation provided under section 33C(1) of the I.D. Act, which stipulates the limitation of one year filing an application from the date on which the money became due to a workman from employer. As recorded hereinabove, the initial recovery application being Recovery Application No.8 of 2006 was filed within limitation, and the Labour Court has also recorded a finding to that effect, hence the contention raised by the petitioner does not merit acceptance. The later recovery applications are filed since the petitioner did not comply with the award and the order passed by the Labour Court. The same were filed for recovery of his legal dues as and when he became entitled. The judgments, on which the reliance is placed by the petitioner, cannot come to his rescue in wake of the remissness, slipshod and carefree attitude of the petitioner towards all the proceedings. It was always open for the petitioner to file an application under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes Gujarat Rules, 1966 for setting aside the ex-parte award. The petitioner did not avail such remedy also and after realizing that he has no option, but to comply with the orders passed by the Labour Court, as a last effort he has filed the present petition. The petitioner was also negligent in pursuing the writ petition being Special Civil Application no.8257 of 2016 as he did not care to restore the same after it was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 27.06.2018. The petitioner was also negligent in pursuing the writ petition being Special Civil Application no.8257 of 2016 as he did not care to restore the same after it was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 27.06.2018. In the present writ petition, the notice was only issued for compromise, but he has also failed to arrive at any compromise with the respondent-workman. In order to see that the petitioner still has a fair opportunity to explain his case and he might settle the matter or respect the orders, he was also heard on merits, but he has failed to impress this Court in that regard also, hence the writ petition deserves to be rejected. 13. Thus, in wake of the brazenness demeanor of the petitioner towards the legal proceedings, the present writ petition is rejected with a cost of Rs.10,000/-. The same shall be paid to the respondent-workman. Notice is discharged.