IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10133 of 2008. Date of Decision : February 02, 2009. Santosh Kumar .... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and another ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Kataria, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 05.10.2006 (Annexure-P-5), wherein the Labour Court, Chandigarh, has answered the reference in the negative on the ground that the workman- petitioner herein has not produced any evidence to substantiate his contention raised in the claim petition and none has put in appearance before the Labour Court to prove the assertions made by the petitioner-workman. Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that wrong date was recorded by the authorised representative of the petitioner-workman i.e. 22.11.2006 because of which on the date fixed, authorised representative could not put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner-workman leading to the passing of the award dated 05.10.2006 (Annexure-P-6). An application for setting aside the ex-parte award was also moved on 19.01.2007 (Annexure-P-6) which is way beyond the period prescribed under the C.W.P. No. 10133 of 2008. Industrial Disputes Act. The application which was moved for setting aside the ex-parte award states that authorised representative has recorded the next date of hearing as 22.10.2006, therefore on the said date, the authorised representative could have come to know that ex-parte award had been passed against the petitioner-workman. Despite having knowledge of ex-parte award being passed, no effective steps were taken by the petitioner-workman to get same set aside within the time stipulated. The reason which has been put forth for not filing the application within the stipulated time is that the authorised representative had to contact the petitioner-workman to file the said application. This submission of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the affidavit of authorised representative or his Clerk was required to be filed before the Court as mistake has not occurred because of the petitioner-workman but because of non recording of the date by the authorised representative or his clerk. That being so, no ground for interference in the said award is called for. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 02, 2009. sjks. -2-