[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION L.P.A. (ST.) NO.17057 OF 2008 IN W.P.NO.4484 OF 2007 WITH L.P.A.NO.204 OF 2008 IN W.P.NO.4721 OF 2008 Raju Shriram Yadav ..Appellant (Ori.Petitioner) Vs. Chetan Textile ..Respondents .... A.S.Rao for Appellant Y.M.Pendse for Respondent .... CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : MARCH 06,2009 DATE : MARCH 06,2009 DATE : MARCH 06,2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Reference (IDA) No. 144 of 2003 was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thane in which the Appellant-Raju Yadav sought reinstatement in service with full backwages. [-2-] 3. The said Reference (IDA) No.144 of 2003 came to be decided by exparte Award dated 27.6.2005 by the learned 3rd Labour Court Thane. The said Reference was allowed exparte and the workman-Raju Yadav came to be reinstated with full backwages with continuity of service with effect from 7.7.2002. 4. In November, 2006, in the said Reference, Misc. Application No. 68 of 2006 came to be preferred by M/s.Chetan Textiles for setting aside the exparte Award dated 27.6.2005. By order dated 30.4.2007, the learned Judge, Third Labour Court, Thane rejected the said application holding that the Award becomes final as the application to set aside exparte order was preferred after one year. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30.4.2007, M/s.Chetan Textiles preferred Writ Petition No. 4484 of 2007. By order dated 8.8.2007, the learned Single Judge of this Court set aside the order dated 30.4.2007 and restored the said Misc. Application No.68 of 2006 and directed the Labour Court Thane to decide the said application afresh. [-3-] 6. After the remand, by order dated 14.3.2008, the learned Judge, Third Labour Court Thane allowed the said Misc. Application No. 68 of 2006 on deposit of costs of Rs.1000/- and restored the Reference (IDA) No. 144 of 2003 to its original state. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 14.3.2008 passed in Misc. Application No. 68 of 2006, workman-Raju Yadav preferred Writ Petition No.4721 of 2008. By order dated 22.7.2008, the learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the said petition and directed the Labour Court to decide the Reference by 31.12.2008. 8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.3.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge, the workman-Raju Yadav preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.204 of 2008. Aggrieved by the order dated 8.8.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4484 of 2007 thereby setting aside order dated 30.4.2007, the workman preferred Letters Patent Appeal (St.) No.17057 of 2008 before this Court. 9. Since both the Letters Patent Appeal involve [-4-] same set of facts, they are being decided and disposed by this common order. 10. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that exparte Award was passed on 27.6.2005. Application to set aside the exparte Award came to be preferred only on 2.11.2006. He submitted that upon expiry of thirty days after the Award, the Labour Court would have no jurisdiction to set aside the exparte Award. However, in our opinion, the material on record shows that in fact, the learned counsel for the Respondent-company had appeared in Court on that day and hence, there was no occasion to pass the exparte order. 11. The case of the Respondent-company is that five alleged workmen including the Appellant filed separate References bearing Nos. 141 of 2003 to 145 of 2003 against the Appellants for reinstating them in service with full backwages and continuity of service. All the References were fixed on one day and it was written on the board as Reference (IDA) Nos.141 to 145 of 2003. This fact is nowhere denied by the Appellant. [-5-] 12. The evidence disclosed that out of these five references, Reference (IDA) No.141 of 2003 came to be disposed of and dispute between the Respondent-company and one workman Shri.Raghuraj Yadav was adjudicated in favour of Second Party. In the said Reference, written statement had been filed by the Appellant. Reference Nos.142 and 143 of 2003 were disposed of for want of evidence. Reference No.145 of 2003 was disposed of in the negative. In the said Reference, Appellant had also filed the written statement. As stated earlier, it has not been denied by the Appellant that all the five matters were kept on one and same date. In the present matter which pertains to Reference No.144 of 2003, it is the case of the Respondent that though written statement was ready but inadvertently the same was not filed. As the advocate inadvertently forgot to tender the written statement in Reference (IDA) No.144 of 2003, this fact resulted into exparte Award. It has come in the cross-examination that the Respondents attended the date of the Reference in the Court. Looking to the fact that all the five matters were kept on board on one and same date, which fact has not been [-6-] denied by the Appellant and looking to the fact that four out of five References came to be disposed of specially Reference No.141 of 2003, the dispute between the workman and the Respondent-company was adjudicated in favour of workman, this shows that in fact, the Respondent-company was represented, hence, the learned Single Judge was right in restoring the matter and directing the Labour Court to decide the application afresh. 13. The above mentioned facts clearly show that advocate for the Respondent-company was infact, very much present before the Court. Moreover, the Respondent-company received notice from the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Thane about disposal of the Reference on 26.9.2006. On 26.9.2006, he came to know about the Award and thereafter, he applied for copy on 6.10.2006 which was received on 19.10.2006 and the application to set aside the exparte order came to be preferred on 2.11.2006. In view of the fact that notice in relation to passing of Award was received on 26.9.2006, it is clear that the application was preferred within thirty days of the receipt of the [-7-] copy of the Award and the contention that the application under Rule 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules 1957, was preferred after thirty days of the passing of the Award, cannot be accepted. 14. In view of the above facts, the Labour Court was right in setting aside the exparte Award. We see no error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, both the Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. However, considering the fact that Reference is pending since 2003, the Labour Court is directed to decide the same expeditiously and as far as possible by 30.9.2009. [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]