( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2820 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra PETITIONER VERSUS Kisan Sakharam Dhaytidak RESPONDENT .... Mr. D.R. Korade, AGP for the petitioner/State. Mr. Pradeep Shahane, advocate for the respondent. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 2nd August, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of learned AGP and learned counsel. 2. The petitioner challenges judgement and order rendered by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 3/1989. The Reference was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad on application filed by the respondent. The Labour Court held that the respondent was wrongfully terminated by the petitioner and, therefore, was entitled for reinstatement. 3. The learned A.G.P. submits that the award has been ( 2 ) rendered exparte and that the petitioner was unable to attend the Labour Court due to official difficulties. It appears that due to bifurcation of Parbhani district at the relevant time, the office of the petitioner was shifted to Hingoli, which was formulated as a new district on account of such bifurcation. The petitioner’s office is now in Command Area and Road Division, Hingoli, which was earlier in the Command Area and Road Division of Parbhani. It is common knowledge that due to shifting of the office, several administrative difficulties are required to be faced. The petitioner was required to shift the papers and the department. It is also stated that Shri Gaikwad, advocate was engaged by the petitioner to appear before the Labour Court in the year 2004, but he could not attend due to his sad demise. This ground seems to be genuine reason for the non-appearance of the petitioner before the Labour Court. The respondent claimed himself to be a daily wager. The issues are required to be thrashed out on basis of the available record. Considering the relevant submissions and the circumstances in which the exparte award is rendered, it is in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order. At the same time, one cannot be oblivious of the fact that the petitioner did not take due care to engage another advocate and ensure appropriate representation before the Labour Court. ( 3 ) In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- (rupees five thousand) within period of six (6) weeks. The costs shall be payable in the Labour Court, Nanded within the above period. If the costs are not deposited, the petition will be deemed as dismissed. Rule made absolute accordingly. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp2820-2010