1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8468 OF 2009 Mr.G.K.Pandey ... Petitioner v/s The Regional Director, International Airport Authority of India. ... Respondent Mr.K.S.Bapat i/by Seema Chopda for the petitioner. Mr.Girish Kulkarni i/by M/s.M.V.kini & Co. for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 6TH JULY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition arises from the order of the Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. No.2, dated 10.8.2009. By this order, the Labour Court dismissed the reference which was remanded to it for considering whether the back wages are payable to the petitioner. 2. Award Parts I and II in Reference No.2/35 of 1990 were challenged by the petitioner by preferring Writ Petition No. 2 3513 of 1997. That petition was decided by the judgment and order dated 24.9.2008. By this judgment and order, respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and the Award Part-II passed by the Tribunal was set aside. The issue relating to back wages was remanded to the Tribunal for decision on the same. Parties were permitted to lead evidence in this regard. 3. It appears that the Tribunal issued two notices to the petitioner to remain present before it for deciding the issue with respect to back wages. These notices were sent to the parties at the addresses which were available with the Tribunal. However, the notices were returned by the postal authorities with endorsements, that the petitioner had “Left” the premises and “Does not stay on the present address”. These notices are at Exh. Nos.29 and 30 respectively in the proceedings of the miscellaneous application. The petitioner failed to remain present before the Tribunal and hence the Tribunal being constrained by the orders of this Court, directing it to decide the issue relating to back wages within a period of three months, dismissed the reference in that regard. 4. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, an 3 application was filed by the petitioner being Misc. Application No.CGIT No.2/4 of 2008 for setting aside the ex- parte award. That application has been rejected by the Tribunal. It has observed that although the applicant was not served, it could not consider this fact since it was bound to deliver judgment within three months as directed by this Court by its order dated 21.9.2008. 5. In my opinion, the reasons given by the Tribunal for not setting aside the ex-parte order are unsustainable. A party to any proceeding before the Court must be issued notice to remain present before it on the date of hearing. In the present case though the notices were issued they were not served on the petitioner. Obviously, therefore, the petitioner could not remain present in Court. It appears from the record that these notices were sent to the address available with the Tribunal. However, from the various proceedings which have been filed in Court including the reference, the earlier writ petition, the miscellaneous application and the present writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has changed his address every now and then. Therefore, it is obvious that he has not received the notice since it was sent to on an address which was available earlier with the Tribunal. 4 6. In my opinion, it would be appropriate to set aside both the order passed by the Tribunal in miscellaneous application as well as the ex-parte award dated 1.12.2008 which is yet to be published. 7. Accordingly, the ex-parte award dated 1.12.2008 and the order dated 10.8.2009 in Misc. Application No.CGIT 2/4 of 2008 are quashed and set aside. 8. In order to avoid any further delay in the matter, parties are directed to be present before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 on 26.7.2010 at 11.00 a.m. There is no need to issue notices to the parties. 9. The Tribunal will decide the issue relating to back wages as directed by this Court by its judgment and order dated 24.9.2008 in Writ Petition No.3513 of 1997. The Tribunal will decide the issue within three months from today. ..... 5