1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No.1762/2008 State of Rajasthan V/s Bhagwan Sahai & anr. 12.11.2008 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Raghuvendra S.Rathore Mr.S.S.Sharma, Government Counsel for the appellant. Heard Mr.S.S.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Delay in filing this appeal however is condoned. By filing a writ application, the appellant challenged the impugned award passed by the labour court dated 28.1.1995 and also order dated 15.4.2002 whereby and whereby the application filed on behalf of the appellant to set aside ex-parte award was dismissed. Facts of this case falls within narrow compass. The concerned workman was terminated from services. Consequently thereof, a dispute was raised under section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The labour court having received the reference proceeded with the matter and notices were issued to the concerned parties including the employer. Before the labour court, one Subhash Chand Sharma, who happened to be the Range Officer of Forest under the State of Rajasthan, appeared. Thereafter, no steps were taken in the proceeding before the labour court. The matter however was adjudicated and award was passed on 28.1.1995. Thereafter, on 6th October, 1995, an application was filed by the employer to set aside the alleged ex-parte award, which ultimately was dismissed on 15.4.2002. 2 The learned Single Judge of this court, however, on appreciation of facts and pleadings of the parties, declined the prayer of the appellant writ-petitioner and ultimately, the impugned award was affirmed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, however, tried to impress upon the court by saying that the impugned award dated 28.1.1995 was ex- parte and therefore, application made by the employer to set aside ex-parte award could have been decided on its own merit and an opportunity could have been afforded to the employer to contest the matter after adducing evidence. When questioned learned counsel for the appellant however could not give satisfactory explanation as to the competence and authority of Subhash Chand Sharma, a Range Officer of Forest, who appeared in the proceeding before the labour court upon service of notice. It is only stated that he was not authorized to contest the reference before the labour court. Neither this fact is discernible from the application filed on behalf of the employer nor from the order passed by the labour court refusing to set aside ex- parte award. It is also not denied about the existence of Subhash Chand Sharma, an officer of the rank of Range Officer of Forest under the State of Rajasthan. Nothing is also said by the appellant as to whether any departmental action was taken against Subhash Chand Sharma, who had unauthorizedly appeared before the labour court. It is also not the case of the appellant that the impugned award, after its publication in the official Gazettee, has not been implemented, rather it appears 3 from the materials on record that in compliance of the award, the concerned workman was reinstated in late 90's and till date he is continuing on the post of Cattle Guard. In a case where ex-parte award is passed, appropriate prayer made to set aside the same is ordinarily entertained in case sufficient cause is shown that the employer was prevented from appearing before the court. In the instant case, the facts are quite reverse. A responsible officer of the Department of the rank of Range Officer of Forest did appear in the proceeding and thereafter, left taking steps before the labour court. In such circumstances, the labour court was left with no option but to dismiss the application filed to set aside award as the same was hopelessly barred by limitation. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the fact that the concerned workman is continuing after reinstatement, in our view, the learned Single Judge of this Court cannot be said to have faulted in dismissing the writ application filed by the State of Rajasthan. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (Raghuvendra S.Rathore)J. (Narayan Roy)C.J. Parmar