IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of timely compliance with industrial dispute proceedings and the principles of delay condonation in the context of seeking restoration of an ex-parte award.

ORDER :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Mankad waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent – workman.

2. Nagarpalika as petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of Labour Court, Himmatnagar dated 29.01.2022 in I.D. Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2020 in Reference (LCH) No. 26 of 2015, wherein the application of the petitioner – Nagarpalika seeking condonation of delay in preferring the application seeking restoration of ex-parte award dated 01.04.2019 in Reference (LCH) No. 26 of 2015 has been rejected.

3. The facts in brief as referred in the petition are as under:-

Respondent – workman was working with petitioner – Nagarpalika from the year 2005. His services came to be terminated w.e.f. 13.11.2014. This decision of termination was taken in view of General Body Resolution No.16 dated 30.10.2014. Against the termination w.e.f. 13.12.2014, the workman raised dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner and the conciliation being failed the dispute was referred to Labour Court, Himmatnagar. The said reference was registered as Reference (LCH) No. 26 of 2015. Upon adjudication, the Labour Court held the termination of the workman w.e.f. 13.11.2014 as illegal and directed the petitioner to reinstate workman with continuity of service and 25% backwages. Costs of Rs.2,001 was also awarded.

3.1 It is case of the petitioner – Nagarpalika that since the award was passed ex-parte, an application seeking restoration under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes Rules (‘the Rule’ for short) was filed being Miscellaneous Application No.16 of 2020 (Page No.44). In the said application, the reasons of non- representation, on behalf of the petitioner – Nagarpalika was stated. Since there was delay in preferring an application under Section 26A of the Rules, seeking restoration, a separate application seeking condonation of delay was preferred, numbered as Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2020 in Reference (LCH) No. 26 of 2015 (Page No.38). It is case of the petitioner that in the said application, delay in preferring the application seeking restoration has been sufficiently explained. The Labour Court upon adjudication rejected Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2020, on the ground that no sufficient reasons has been stated for condonation of delay. Against the rejection of application under order dated 29.01.2022, I.D. Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2020, present petition is filed.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela for the petitioner – Nagarpalika and learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Mankad for respondent – workman.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela for the petitioner submitted that the order of Labour Court, Himmatnagar dated 29.01.2022 in I.D. Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2020 is erroneous on the following grounds: -

5.1 The workman was terminated pursuant to the resolution of the Municipality dated 30.10.2014. At the relevant point of time the workman was working as part-timer, and on account of more expenditure incurred by the Municipality, a resolution was passed wherein a decision was taken to terminate the service of workman who are part timers, and therefore the workman was terminated. Hence, there is no illegal termination which the Labour Court, Himmatnagar erred in considering.

5.2 The respondent – workman was terminated based on the seniority as last come first go basis, which has been recorded in the resolution. Since, the matter was not contested on merits by the advocate appearing for the Municipality, proper defence was not taken and therefore an ex-parte award deserves restoration. Since the award was passed ex-parte and no evidence was produced by the Municipality to prove that the workman was not illegally terminated an application seeking restoration along with condonation of delay was passed. Since the same was not appropriately considered the order of Labour Court dated 29.01.2022 is erroneous.

5.3 The respondent – workman raised a dispute and