JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia for the following relief:

"7.(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the ex-parte impugned order passed in Reference (LCB) No. 405 of 1998 dated 02.04.2004 and the order passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 28 of 2004 for restoration dated 29.10.2012 (Annexure - 'A'), in the interest of justice."

2. While issuing rule vide order dated 26.12.2012, this Court has passed the following order:

"Rule.

Interim relief qua continuity of service and full back wages is granted on condition that the respondent workman shall be reinstated in service within a period of thirty days from today.

It is clarified that if the workman is not reinstated within the prescribed period, it shall be open to the respondent workman to move the competent court for appropriate orders for monthly wages under Section 33(C)(2) as if he was in continued service."

3. During pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent-workman has already reached the age of superannuation in April, 2021. Pursuant to the interim order, the respondent-workman was reinstated in service however, no specific date is known either to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner or to the learned advocate appearing for the respondent-workman.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Jani appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the issue is involved with regard to continuity of service and full back wages, the matter may be remanded back and ex parte award may be set aside. It is submitted that huge liability of full back wages from 1997 to 2004 will be fastened on the petitioner. It is further submitted that it is true that the petitioner was unable to appear before the Labour Court and reference has been decided ex parte. It is submitted that when the award was published, immediately within limitation period an application being Misc. Application No. 28 of 2004 was filed for restoration under the provisions of Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 (for short "the Rules") for setting aside the ex parte award however, the application was not entertained and the same was rejected by the order dated 29.10.2012. It is submitted that appropriate costs may be imposed and the matter may be remanded.

5. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Patadiya has submitted that since the respondent-workman had already reached the age of superannuation and he was reinstated in service pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the impugned orders may not be interfered with.

6. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.

7. It appears that the respondent-workman on his termination raised an industrial dispute, which culminated into Reference (LCB) No. 405 of 1998. Despite the issuance of notice, the petitioner did not care to appear in the reference proceedings and, therefore, the same was decided ex parte by directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service and full back wages. After the aforesaid award was published, the petitioner filed Misc. Application No. 28 of 2004 under the provision of Rule 26A of the Rules. A perusal of the application reveals that in fact the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner could not remain present in the reference proceedings. It is further submitted that though the subsequent notice was issued before closing the defence, rights to lead the evidence was closed, without issuance of any notice hence, the impugned award dated 02.04.2004 has been passed by the Labour Court by directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with full back wages however, bare perusal of the award reveals that the Labour Court has not recorded any submissions of the respondent-workman nor any observation is made wi