1 In the high Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench Jaipur Order S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3894/1992 Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd and another vs. Judge, Industria Tribunal and another. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5160/1997 M.K. Bakliwal vs State of Rajasthan and ors. Date of Order : 4.2.2009 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr. Manu Bhargava, for the petitioner. Mr. Aprit Srivastava, for respondent. In CW No. 3894/1992 Mr. RS Shekhawat, for the petitioner. Mr. Manu Bhargava, for the respondents. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These two writ petitions pertaining to common question of facts and they are being heard together and are decided by this commn rder. 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3894/1992 was filed by the Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., Jaipur (RCDF) and S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5160/1997 was filed by the workman for 2 implementation of the award. 4. Learned counsel for the RCDF has argued that the award was passed ex parte against the management and that none of these facts which should have been noticed by the Tribunal, were actually placed before it. Learned counsel argued that the reference was made on the question whether the workman M.K. Bakliwal was entitled to parity in pay with Mr. JP Jangid and the respondent Union asserted before the Tribunal that Mr. MK Bakliwal was senior most in the seniority when he was working as cashier and thereafter he was promoted on the post of Junior Accountant/ Purchase Supervisor with effect from 11.3.1985. It was argued that the respondent- union did not bring true facts to the notice of the Tribunal that Mr. M.K. Bakliwal was promoted on the post of Sr. Store Supervisor on 13.4.1984 whereas according to the facts produced before the Tribunal by the respondent Union, he was shown to have been promoted on the post of Junior Accountant/ Purchase Supervisor on that date. Learned counsel submitted that even from Schedule I filed along with reply before this 3 Court, it would be evident that the initial appointment of Mr. Mahendra Kumar Bakliwal as LDC was made on 5.1.1977 whereas the date of initial appointment of Mr. J.P. Jangid was 17.7.1958. 5. Petitioner has filed additional affidavit also stating therein that Mr. JP Jangid was holding the post in the scale of 660-1300 in the year 1984 whereas MK Bakliwal in that year was receiving salary in the pay scale of 645-1120 and that the facts stated in Schedule-I are incorrect that the respondent before the Tribunal have also not stated correct facts. That the RCDF has engaged a counsel before the Tribunal who did not appear and the matter thus remained unattended from its side and in absence of contest, it was decided against them. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mr. JP Jangid was never substantive employee of RCDF and he was originally the employee of Jaipur Milk Supply Scheme, Jaipur wherefrom he was absorbed in the service of the RCDF in 1983 on the post of Store Keeper. Learned counsel asserted that Mr. Jangid was promoted to the post of Junior Accountant on 13.4.1984 and not on the post of Sr. 4 Supervisor and was promoted on the post of Supervisor on 26.11.1980 which was totally unjust and illegal. Even otherwise, the matter remained pending so long, therefore the award be set aside and the matter be remitted back for reply of management of RCDF to lead evidence on all these facts. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration on rival submissions and perused the relevant record. 7. Perusal of the award clearly indicates that whatever is submitted by the petitioner before this curt in Schedule I appended to the reply of Union was taken in evidence on their behalf by the Tribunal and since there was no contest from the side of the RCDF, such evidence remained uncontroverted and on that basis claim of the union was taken as proved and reference was answered. Though it appears that on the initial date that was fixed as 20.2.1990, one Shri P.L. Agarwal has put in appearance on behalf of the Employer RCDF and was granted time to file reply and GP Sharma appeared from opposite side. Many opportunities were given to file reply and lastly on payment of the cost of Rs.200/- time was 5 granted for filing reply. Even then reply was not filed and right of riling reply was closed on 13.3.1991. The matter was fixed for evidence on 15.4.1991. On that day no one appeared for the RCDF and therefore ex parte proceedings were ordered against them. Mr. Bakliwal filed affidavit along with 18 documents. Nobody appeared to controvert the evidence proved by the Union before the Tribunal. It is thus clearly evident that RCDF has got a case worth examination on merits. Although it is correct that RCDF should have been vigilant enough for contesting the matter before the Tribunal itself. But inconvinience caused to the union/ workman needs to be compensated by payment of appropriate cost keeping in view the fact that the award was passed as far back as 10.9.1991 and the matter has remained all these years pending. 8. In the result, the writ petition filed by the RCDLF is allowed and the impugned award is set aside to the extent that RCDF is set at liberty to adduce its evidence within three months of production of copy of this order by either party before the Tribunal and within further period of three months to file any 6 evidence in rebuttal by the union. The Tribunal is directed to pass final award within three months thereafter. Entire proceedings be concluded in 9 months. The RCDF is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- as cost to workman/ union on the first date of production of its copy before the Tribunal without which the evidence shall not be read in in evidence. The writ petition filed by the workman is disposed of accordingly. (Mohammad Rafiq),J om