ORDER : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Mankad waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent – workman. 2. Nagarpalika as petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of Labour Court, Himmatnagar dated 29.01.2022 in I.D. Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2020 in Reference (LCH) No. 26 of 2015, wherein the application of the petitioner – Nagarpalika seeking condonation of delay in preferring the application seeking restoration of ex-parte award dated 01.04.2019 in Reference (LCH) No. 26 of 2015 has been rejected. 3. The facts in brief as referred in the petition are as under:- Respondent – workman was working with petitioner – Nagarpalika from the year 2005. His services came to be terminated w.e.f. 13.11.2014. This decision of termination was taken in view of General Body Resolution No.16 dated 30.10.2014. Against the termination w.e.f. 13.12.2014, the workman raised dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner and the conciliation being failed the dispute was referred to Labour Court, Himmatnagar. The said reference was registered as Reference (LCH) No. 26 of 2015. Upon adjudication, the Labour Court held the termination of the workman w.e.f. 13.11.2014 as illegal and directed the petitioner to reinstate workman with continuity of service and 25% backwages. Costs of Rs.2,001 was also awarded. 3.1 It is case of the petitioner – Nagarpalika that since the award was passed ex-parte, an application seeking restoration under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes Rules (‘the Rule’ for short) was filed being Miscellaneous Application No.16 of 2020 (Page No.44). In the said application, the reasons of non- representation, on behalf of the petitioner – Nagarpalika was stated. Since there was delay in preferring an application under Section 26A of the Rules, seeking restoration, a separate application seeking condonation of delay was preferred, numbered as Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2020 in Reference (LCH) No. 26 of 2015 (Page No.38). It is case of the petitioner that in the said application, delay in preferring the application seeking restoration has been sufficiently explained. The Labour Court upon adjudication rejected Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2020, on the ground that no sufficient reasons has been stated for condonation of delay. Against the rejection of application under order dated 29.01.2022, I.D. Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2020, present petition is filed. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela for the petitioner – Nagarpalika and learned advocate Mr. Against the rejection of application under order dated 29.01.2022, I.D. Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2020, present petition is filed. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela for the petitioner – Nagarpalika and learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Mankad for respondent – workman. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela for the petitioner submitted that the order of Labour Court, Himmatnagar dated 29.01.2022 in I.D. Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2020 is erroneous on the following grounds: - 5.1 The workman was terminated pursuant to the resolution of the Municipality dated 30.10.2014. At the relevant point of time the workman was working as part-timer, and on account of more expenditure incurred by the Municipality, a resolution was passed wherein a decision was taken to terminate the service of workman who are part timers, and therefore the workman was terminated. Hence, there is no illegal termination which the Labour Court, Himmatnagar erred in considering. 5.2 The respondent – workman was terminated based on the seniority as last come first go basis, which has been recorded in the resolution. Since, the matter was not contested on merits by the advocate appearing for the Municipality, proper defence was not taken and therefore an ex-parte award deserves restoration. Since the award was passed ex-parte and no evidence was produced by the Municipality to prove that the workman was not illegally terminated an application seeking restoration along with condonation of delay was passed. Since the same was not appropriately considered the order of Labour Court dated 29.01.2022 is erroneous. 5.3 The respondent – workman raised a dispute and the same was registered before the Labour Court on 04.03.2015. The Municipality thereafter filed its appearance on 24.09.2015. Despite opportunities granted the workman could not file his Statement of Claim and therefore the stage of filing the Statement of Claim was closed on 17.02.2017. After closing the stage of Statement of Claim, an application was moved by the workman to re-open the stage of filing of Statement of Claim and the same came to be allowed on 21.12.2017. After that the workman filed an affidavit-in-chief on 06.07.2018. Therefore, the delay occasioned in filing the Statement of Claim by leading evidence may not be ignored. 5.4 After affidavit-in-chief dated 06.07.2018, the workman filed an application to close the stage of petitioner – Municipality for cross-examination. After that the workman filed an affidavit-in-chief on 06.07.2018. Therefore, the delay occasioned in filing the Statement of Claim by leading evidence may not be ignored. 5.4 After affidavit-in-chief dated 06.07.2018, the workman filed an application to close the stage of petitioner – Municipality for cross-examination. Pursuant to the application seeking closing of stage, a notice came to be issued and the same was served to the Municipality. It is true that despite service of notice since the advocate could not remain present, and therefore evidence could not be laid and workman could not be cross-examined. The petitioner being public exchequer, ex-parte award would cause prejudice to it and therefore the award of the Labour Court non-granting condonation of delay deserves rejection. 5.5 Since the award dated 01.04.2019 was passed ex-parte, an application seeking restoration with delay condonation was passed on 18.08.2020 and the same came to be rejected on 29.01.2022. Admittedly, the award dated 01.04.2019 was an ex-parte award and therefore application filed under Rule 26A of the Rules with condonation of delay may be allowed in the interest of justice. 5.6 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the award of the Labour Court being erroneous as well as without leading any evidence by the petitioner – Municipality, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the application of the petitioner seeking restoration may be allowed. In a stipulated time schedule, the petitioner may be permitted to lead the evidence by restoring the application by permitting condonation of delay by passing appropriate orders. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Mankad strenuously objecting to the petition submitted that no interference is called for in the order dated 29.01.2022 in I.D. Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2020 as also in the award dated 01.04.2019 of the Labour Court in Reference (LCH) No. 26 of 2015. Inviting attention of this Court to the chronology, learned advocate submitted that the award of the Labour Court dated 01.04.2019 in Reference (LCH) No. 26 of 2015 was published on 25.04.2019. The said publication was put to the notice of petitioner – Municipality, despite that no action was taken. 6.1 After publication of award reminders were sent by workman to petitioner – Municipality for implementation of the award by sending letters dated 24.05.2019, 22.07.2019, 08.08.2019 and 27.11.2019. Despite that no action was taken by the Municipality. The said publication was put to the notice of petitioner – Municipality, despite that no action was taken. 6.1 After publication of award reminders were sent by workman to petitioner – Municipality for implementation of the award by sending letters dated 24.05.2019, 22.07.2019, 08.08.2019 and 27.11.2019. Despite that no action was taken by the Municipality. Thereafter, an application under Rule 26A of the Rules was filed along with condonation of delay on 18.08.2020. The said application of seeking restoration along with delay condonation came to be rejected on 29.01.2022. Thereafter, reminder letters dated 16.02.2022, 16.03.2022 and 04.07.2022 were sent for implementation of the award. Since, no action was taken, an application seeking recovery under Section 32(C)(2) was filed on 23.02.2023. The same was numbered as Recovery Application No.01 of 2023. In recovery application, notice was issued and after issuance of notice in the said recovery application, the present application was filed on 11.07.2023. Learned advocate submitted that above chronology reflects the negligent approach on the part of the Municipality for which the respondent – workman may not be made to suffer. 6.2 Moreover, on merits also the award of the Labour Court is just and legal because two simultaneous references were adjudicated by the workman. One Mr. Prabhudas S. Chauhan was also terminated along with respondent – workman and his reference was registered as IT (LCH) No.27 of 2015. Out of these two reference the petitioner – Municipality appeared in the reference in case of Mr. Prabhudas Chauhan. Though respondent – workman’s case is similar to that of Mr. Prabhudas Chauhan, the Municipality did not appear and represent their case. Most importantly in the case of Mr. Prabhudas Chauhan, the Labour Court awarded reinstatement with continuity and 25% backwages. The said award of the Labour Court in case of Mr. Prabhudas Chauhan was subject matter of petition in Special Civil Application No. 17863 of 2018 with Special Civil Application No. 17159 of 2021, wherein this Court confirmed the award of the Labour Court. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 26.10.2023 in Special Civil Application No. 17863 of 2018 the workman Mr. Prabhudas Chauhan has been reinstated and he is still working with petitioner – Municipality. Therefore, the case of present respondent – workman is similar there is no merits even if the restoration is permitted. Therefore, the delay condonation along with restoration has been rightly rejected. 7. Prabhudas Chauhan has been reinstated and he is still working with petitioner – Municipality. Therefore, the case of present respondent – workman is similar there is no merits even if the restoration is permitted. Therefore, the delay condonation along with restoration has been rightly rejected. 7. Considered the submissions. From the chronology referred hereinabove it is noticed that for the termination w.e.f. 13.11.2014, the workman raised dispute registered in the year 2015. Upon registration of reference, an appearance was filed by Municipality on 24.09.2015 and the Statement of Claim was filed by the workman on 06.07.2018. It is true that there is delay in filing the Statement of Claim but upon filing of an application by the workman and the same being allowed immediately the workman filed an affidavit-in-chief on 06.07.2018. Thereafter, notice for leading the evidence was served upon the petitioner – Municipality on 01.09.2018. Thereafter, considerable time was passed and thereafter an application dated 02.02.2019 was filed by the workman seeking to close the stage of leading the evidence by Municipality and thereafter an order dated 01.04.2019 was passed. Thus, it cannot be ignored that after filing appearance through an advocate on 24.09.2015 nothing was done by Municipality for leading the evidence and to participate in the proceedings which are pending before the Labour Court, Himmatnagar. 8. Further, the award dated 01.04.2019, was published on 25.04.2019 and upon publication several reminders dated 24.05.2019, 22.07.2019, 08.08.2019 and 27.11.2019 were sent by the workman to the Municipality seeking implementation. Despite that nothing was done and application seeking restoration with delay condonation was filed on 18.08.2020 which is merely after 10 months. Even after rejection of delay condonation, several reminder letters dated 16.02.2022, 16.03.2022 and 04.07.2022 were sent and on 23.02.2023 recovery application was filed. Upon filing of recovery application this petition is filed on 07.07.2023 challenging the order of Labour Court, Himmatnagar rejecting delay condonation along with restoration. This shows the complete lethargic and negligent approach on the part of petitioner – Municipality. Moreover, in this case, it cannot be ignored that the workman had worked for more than 9 years. The sole reliance placed by petitioner – Municipality is on resolution dated 30.10.2014, wherein a decision was taken to terminate the services of the part-timers. The resolution refers to more than 48% expenditure incurred by municipality, where name of respondent – workman along with others is figured. The sole reliance placed by petitioner – Municipality is on resolution dated 30.10.2014, wherein a decision was taken to terminate the services of the part-timers. The resolution refers to more than 48% expenditure incurred by municipality, where name of respondent – workman along with others is figured. However, seniority position of the workmen was not reflected. no date of seniority has been referred in the resolution. Thus, contention of the petitioner that the part-timers referred in the resolution are back door entry and they have maintained seniority as last come first go basis is without evidence. 9. Moreover, the contention of the respondent-workman that case of Mr. Prabhudas Chauhan is similar to the present workman is not rebutted. Factually, termination reference of Mr. Prabhudas Chauhan was registered as Reference (LCH) No. 27 of 2015 and decided on 09.02.2018. Against the order in Reference (LCH) No. 27 of 2015 (in the case of Mr. Prabhudas Chauhan) Special Civil Application No. 17863 of 2018 was filed by Municipality, wherein this Court vide order dated 26.10.2023 confirmed the award of Labour Court and pursuant to which Mr. Prabhudas Chauhan was reinstated in service and is still in employment of petitioner – Municipality. 10. In view of above, on both the grounds – considering the negligent approach on part of the Municipality in filing this petition challenging rejection of delay condonation application at a belated stage i.e. after 18 months from the date of order rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay along with the fact that in a similarly situated workman challenging his termination, the order in Reference (LCH) No. 27 of 2015 is confirmed by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2023 in Special Civil Application No. 17863 of 2018, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in the order of Labour Court, Himmatnagar dated 01.04.2019 in Reference (LCH) No. 26 of 2015 and 29.01.2022 in I.D. Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2020. 11. In view of above, the present petition being devoid of merits, the same is rejected. Rule is discharged.