DBSAW NO.451/04. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL AMENDED SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.451/2004. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1273/1999. Union of India & Anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal & Anr. Date of Judgment : September 17, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mrs. Naina Saraf for the appellants. Shri V.K. Joshi for respondent No.2-workman. *********** Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) This appeal has been preferred by the Union of India challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13/8/2003 whereby their writ petition was dismissed. In the writ petition, appellants-Union of India had challenged the ex-parte award passed by the Industrial Tribunal Jaipur dated 22/5/1995 and the order dated 13/11/1998. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition directed the appellants to reinstate the respondent- workman within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the judgment and make payment of arrears including the cost of Rs.20,000/-. DBSAW NO.451/04. 2 3) After passing of the ex-parte award, an application was filed by the appellants before the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties on 6/5/1997 wherein, appellants undertook to reinstate the respondent- workman within 30 days subject to final award that may be passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, learned Industrial Tribunal vide its order dated 6/5/1997 recalled the ex-parte award. When the appellants did not reinstate the respondent-workman, he filed an application before the Tribunal on 6/11/1997 contending therein that in view of failure of the appellants to abide by the terms of compromise, award as passed by the Tribunal on 22/5/1995 be treated as final and the proceedings be dropped. Learned Tribunal allowed the application and passed the order accordingly on 13/11/1998. 4) When this matter was argued before the court on 28/7/2004, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Union of India stated that they are willing to reinstate the respondent-workman for the time being subject to the final outcome of the appeal. It appears that the appellants thereafter reinstated the respondent-workman but subsequently, as informed by the learned counsel for the parties, he has again been discontinued. 5) Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties however, we find that award which was initially passed was an ex-parte award and the appellants were not afforded opportunity to adduce evidence before the Tribunal. DBSAW NO.451/04. 3 6) In view of the fact that respondent-workman was subsequently reinstated in service as per the own stand of the appellants before this court, we while setting aside the ex-parte award dated 22/5/1995 and subsequent order dated 13/11/1998, remit the matter back to the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur with direction to give opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and decide the matter afresh within a period of six months from the date copy of this order is received/produced before it. Respondent-workman shall however be entitled to the benefits pursuant to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge including the amount of cost of Rs.20,000/-. During the course of arguments, however, attention of the court was drawn to the fact that bank draft of the amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited by the appellants with the Registry of this Court was not revalidated after April, 2007. 7) In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the appellants-Union of India to pay to the respondent-workman Rs.20,000/- within a period of one month and furnish proof thereof before the Industrial Tribunal. Reinstatement of the respondent-workman shall however be subject to the final outcome of the final award that may be passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ. anil/-