IMPORTANT POINT
The importance of timely access to justice and the consequences of inordinate delay in seeking remedies.

ORDER :

1. By way of the instant petition, a challenge is made to the order impugned dated 26.05.2006, passed by the learned Labour Court in L.C.R. (Misc.) No. 46/2003 titled as Nagar Palika, Bayana vs. Udai Bhan, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 12.02.1998, was dismissed.

2. The ineluctable and concise factual matrix, necessary for the adjudication of the instant petition, is noted herein-under:-

2.1 That on 19.09.1993, the respondent-Udai Bhan was appointed as a daily wage worker on the post of Junior Engineer.

2.2 That on 01.08.1995, the services of the respondent-Udai Bhan were terminated by the petitioner by way of an oral/verbal order.

2.3 That being aggrieved, the respondent-Udai Bhan filed an application under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Conciliation Officer.

2.4 That conciliation between the petitioner-Department and the respondent-Udai Bhan culminated without arriving at a consensus. Accordingly, as per Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Bharatpur.

2.5 That on 07.08.1996, the respondent-Udai Bhan filed his statement of claim.

2.6 That upon receiving notice(s), the counsel for the petitioner-Department before the learned Labour Court filed his vakalatnama and thereafter, marked his appearance.

2.7 That on 20.08.1997, the learned Labour Court initiated ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner-Department as after filing the vakalatnama, the counsel for the petitioner-Department did not repeatedly appear before the court.

2.8 That on 12.02.1998, the learned Labour Court passed an ex-parte award holding the termination of services of the respondent-Udai Bhan as illegal, thereby directing his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages.

2.9 That being aggrieved, the petitioner-Department filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5699/1998 before this Court. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.11.1998 whereby without expressing any view on merits, the petitioner-Department was directed and/or given the liberty to file an application before the learned Labour Court itself with regards to the setting aside of the ex-parte award dated 12.02.1998.

2.10 That being further aggrieved of the order dated 16.11.1998, as passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner-Department filed a D.B. Special Appeal No. 325/1999, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2003.

2.11 That resultantly, the petitioner-Department, in light of the liberty so granted, moved an application before the learned Labour Court for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 12.02.1998.

2.12 That after hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the learned Labour Court, vide order impugned dated 26.05.2006, rejected/dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner-Department.

2.13 That as a result, the instant petition is filed by the petitioner-Department for setting aside the order impugned dated 26.05.2006.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-Department that the order impugned is neither sustainable in law, nor in the facts of the instant case. In this regard, it is averred that after receipt of the notices of the reference made by the learned Labour Court, the petitioner-Department immediately appointed Sh. Mohan Sharma as their counsel before the learned court below to plead their case. However, unfortunately, pursuant to the filing of his vakalatnama, the counsel so appointed could not appear before the learned Labour Court. Therefore, taking note of the continued absence, an ex-parte award was passed by the learned Labour Court. In order to draw a case for setting aside the ex-parte award, it was conclusively argued that as per the principles of natural justice, the litigating party cannot suffer for the negligence of his counsel or representative.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the order impugned