LPA No. 1553 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1553 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision 30.11.2011 M/s Shivam Creation . Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad and another .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the appellants 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR,J. 1. The instant appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 13.10.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge. The appellant had challenged before the learned Single Judge reinstatement of workman- respondent with continuity of service and 50 percent back wages. Before the Labour Court it was established on the basis of documents produced by the workman- respondent that he was working for more than 240 days in 12 preceding months and the service of the respondent-workman were illegally terminated in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The evidence adduced by the workman could not be controverted. Therefore, the Labour Court placing reliance on the LPA No. 1553 of 2011 2 evidence adduced by the workman- respondent accepted the reference and held him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service with 50 percent back wages. 2. The learned Single Judge took notice of some argument advanced concerning action against the authorised representative of petitioner- appellant. An affidavit was filed that the authorised representative was not a lawyer and therefore no action could be taken against him and it was alleged in a communication placed on record that the workman- respondent was a permanent litigant and was well known to Mool Chand. However, on the contrary evidence given by Mool Chand is that he had noted a wrong date by mistake which had lead to the passing of ex-parte award. The learned Single Judge concluded that the petitioner-appellant has not been able to establish the real reason for which they were proceeded against ex- parte and then have challenged the award after a considerable delay which have remained unexplained and accordingly dismissed the petition. 3. We have heard Mr. Sandeep Chabbra, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant. The affidavit dated 20.2.2010 cannot constitute the basis for setting aside the ex-parte award. If any action is to be taken by the petitioner- appellant then the same would not result into setting aside the award dated 21.10.2008. Infact after publication of the award in the official gazette, the Labour Court is rendered functuous officio. The award has already been published in the official gazette. Therefore, nothing would hinge upon the action which may be taken against the authorised representative by the petitioner-appellant. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, we do not feel any LPA No. 1553 of 2011 3 necessity of passing order on the application seeking condonation of delay in refiling the appeal. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Rajiv Narain Raina) 30.11.2011 Judge okg