Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard Mr. Suman Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Santanu Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2

2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the award dated 31.08.2005, passed by the Labour Court, Assam, Guwahati, in Reference Case No. 15 of 2003.

3. At the relevant point of time, respondent No. 2 was working as Accounts Clerk in Shyamguri Tea Estate, situated in the district of Sonitpur, Assam. On 29.12.2001, he was transferred to Pearacherra Tea Estate, situated in the State of Tripura w.e.f. 21.01.2002. Both the Tea Estates are under the management and control of Indian Tea and Provision Limited, i.e., the petitioner No. 1.

4. Contending that his transfer to Pearacherra Tea Estate in Tripura was not authorised and valid, respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. Reference was made for adjudication of the below mentioned 2 (two) issues:-

(1) Whether the management of Shyamguri Tea Estate, P.S.-Darrang, Panbari, District - Sonitpur are justified in transferring Sri Rajib Saikia, Accounts Clerk to Pearacherra Tea Estate, which is located in Tripura, w.e.f. 21.01.2002 ?

(2) If not, whether the workman should be reposted at the same Tea Estate, with his full back wages or relief in lieu thereof ?

5. On receipt of the said reference from the appropriate Government the same was registered by the Labour Court as Reference Case No. 15 of 2003. Notice was issued to the contesting parties. Thereafter, they filed their respective written statements. Evidence was adduced by both the sides, 3 (three) from the side of the management and 1 (one) from the side of the workman.

6. On due consideration, Labour Court passed the impugned award dated 31.08.2005, taking the view that the management was not justified in transferring the respondent No. 2 to Tripura and accordingly, it was held that respondent No. 2 would be entitled to reposting as Accounts Clerk in Shyamguri Tea Estate with full back wages.

7. Management has challenged the validity of the said award in the present proceeding.

8. This Court by order dated 07.04.2006, had admitted the writ petition and in the meanwhile, stayed the impugned award dated 31.08.2005.

9. On an application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, in short, 'the Act'), for a direction to the management to pay the last wages drawn, which was registered as Misc Case No. 3018 of 2006, this Court passed order dated 12.12.2006, directing that the impugned award dated 31.08.2005 shall remain suspended subject to the condition that the workman was paid his last drawn wages by the management effective from the date of the award. However, on an appeal filed by the management, which was registered as Writ Appeal No. 51 of 2007, a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 14.06.2011, took the view that Section 17-B of the Act does not have any application to the facts of the present case. Consequently, the order dated 12.12.2006 was set aside.

10. At an earlier point of time, respondent No. 2 had filed an application for vacation of the interim order dated 07.04.2006, which was registered as Misc Case No. 2793 of 2006. From a perusal of the order-sheet, it appears that there were defaults on the part of the petitioners in prosecuting the case. On 03.01.2014 there was none to represent the petitioners when the case was called upon for hearing. Thereafter, on 25.02.2014, Mr K R Surana, the Advocate on record for the petitioners submitted before the Court that the case brief was taken away from him about 3 (three) years ago and despite intimation to his clients to make alternative arrangement, there was none to represent the petitioners on that day. However, the workman was represented by his counsel. In view of the above and noticing the lack of interest of the management, the case was dismissed for non-prosecution.

11. An applicatio