IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1139 of 2011 Date of Decision : October 03, 2011. M/s Modern Machine Tools Industries .....Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, UT, Chandigarh & another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-management is aggrieved by the ex-parte award dated 8.12.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, whereby the respondent-workman has been ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages. The petitioner-management is also aggrieved by the order dated 9.12.2010 (Annexure P-6) of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh rejecting its application to recall the ex-parte award. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner-management was duly served in the pending reference and its authorized representative CWP No.1139 of 2011 [2] (Harish Kumar) appeared on its behalf on 25.9.2007. The matter was then adjourned to 27.11.2007 when no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner- management. It was accordingly proceeded ex-parte followed by the ex- parte award dated 8.12.2009. The petitioner-management moved an application to recall the said award after 7 months, i.e., on 9.7.2010 wherein it was acknowledged that the workman served it from 16.7.2001 to 24.10.2006 (though the workman claimed that he was appointed on 7.12.1996). The said application has been turned down by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T. Chandgiarh and rightly so after observing that the petitioner-management had full knowledge of the pending proceedings and the application to set-aside the ex-parte award was filed after about three months and twenty days after publication of the award in the official Gazette. The plea that the authorized representative connived with the workman, does not improve the case of the management as once the pendency of the reference was in its knowledge, it was for the management to make necessary arrangements to defend itself. Since the evidence led by the workman has gone unrebutted, no case to interfere with the impugned award is made out. Dismissed. October 03, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE