Judgment

DESAI, J. :- Special leave granted.

2. We heard Mr. Harbans Lal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Atul C. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. An industrial dispute arising out of the termination of service of the appellant who 295 was employed as a conductor by the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication and it was numbered as Reference No. 55 of 1981. On receipt of the notice of the reference, the workman and the employer both filed, their respective statements, The reference came up for hearing on February 23, 1982 and when it was called out neither the appellant nor his representative one Shri M. L. Gupta was present. The Labour Court directed the matter to be heard ex parte. After making that order, the Labour Court proceeded to observe that as no evidence has been led by the appellant, there is nothing to show that the termination of service was illegal or invalid, and concluded that the appellant was therefore, not entitled to any relief. Soon thereafter an application was moved by the appellant for recalling the order disposing of the reference ex parte. It was stated in the application that the date given to the appellant to appear before the court was February 26, 1982 and not February 23, 1982 when the reference was disposed of ex parte. The employer contended that as the award has already been published in the Gazette there is no provision for recalling the award made ex parte nor restoring the case to file. In the meantime the presiding officer of the Labour Court was transferred and some other presiding officer was appointed and, before him the application came up for hearing. The Labour Court held that once the award was published in the Gazette, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to recall the award or to set aside the ex parte award and to restore the case to file. The appellant moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

4. A Division Bench of the High Court observed that the Labour Court was right, after examining the record, in turning down the plea of the petitioner that some date other than 23-2-1983, was fixed for the hearing of the case. The petitioner obviously failed to prove any sufficient ground for absenting himself on the said date. Hence no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. The High Court therefore, dismissed the writ petition in limine. Hence this appeal by special leave.

5. The question before the High Court was whether the Labour Court committed any error in rejecting the application of the appellant for setting aside the ex parte award on the sole ground that once an award is published in the Official Gazette, even if it be an ex parte one, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for setting aside such an award. This was the only question of law going to the root of the matter which was canvased before the High Court and surprisingly there is not a word about it in the brief speaking order of the High Court rejecting the writ petition of the appellant in limine.

6. On behalf of the respondent the same contention was canvassed before us. The distressing feature of the situation is that even though the contention which found favour both with the Labour Court and the High Court is wholly untenable in view of the decision of this Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal (1981) 2 SCR 341 rendered on December 12, 1980, the matter has been brought to this Court and yet today the same contention is pressed which clearly discloses total ignorance about the law laid down by this Court. How proceedings multiply interminably for failure to investigate the law applicable to the legal proposition and thereby condemn the parties to unnecessary cost and prolixity of litigation is amply demonstrated, The decision of this Court was rendered on December 12,1980 and appeared in law reports soon thereafter, yet on April 16, 1983 the correct legal position a