1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 95/2005. (BHAGIRATH SINGH VS. STATE & OTHERS) DATE OF ORDER : 23.07.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. R.S. Saluja for the petitioner. Mr. N.K. Mehta for the respondents. This petition for writ is preferred to challenge validity, correctness and propriety of the award dated 08.06.2001 passed by the labour court, Bikaner holding that no dispute exists between the parties in view of the statement given by the representative of the workman. The factual matrix necessary for adjudication of this petition for writ is that the workman raised an industrial dispute relating to his retrenchment from service and that came to be referred to the labour court by the appropriate government on 19.10.1992. The labour court by its award dated 27.08.1993 answered the reference by holding that the termination of the workman amounts to retrenchment from service and that was effected without adhering mandatory condition precedents to do so. A direction was accordingly given to reinstate the workman with continuity in service and also with back wages. 2 The award aforesaid came to be published as per provisions of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 04.04.1994. The employer after publication of the award, submitted an application on 20.05.1995 for re-calling the award dated 27.08.1993. The application aforesaid was accepted by the labour court on 04.05.2001 with cost of Rs.850/-. The labour court after restoring the industrial dispute, passed the award dated 08.06.2001 by holding that no dispute exists between the parties. While assailing validity of the award aforesaid, it is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner workman that no notice of the application preferred by the employer as per the provisions of Rule 22-A of the Rajasthan Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958 was served upon the workman and a representative appeared before the Court on his behalf without having any instruction by the petitioner. I have examined the originals of the entire case. From perusal of the order sheets of the labour court relating to the application preferred under Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1958, it is apparent that a notice issued was served upon the 3 workman and at first instance, one Shri Santosh Saini appeared on his behalf. Subsequent thereto, one Shri Bharat Bhushan put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner workman. A reply to the application under Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1958 was also filed on behalf of the workman and the reply is signed by the workman himself. I have compared the signatures those were put on the reply before the labour court and I found that those are similar to the signatures made by the petitioner on the present petition for writ. The allegation of the petitioner that no notice of application preferred under Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1958 was served upon him is apparently false. The conduct of the petitioner, therefore, is highly deplorable and on this count alone, I do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the matter. The petition for writ, therefore, is dismissed. The petitioner shall refund the cost of Rs.850/- to the employer that was accepted by him in pursuant to the order dated 04.05.2001. Beside the above, the petitioner shall also pay a cost of Rs.250/- to the employer. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/