The court emphasized the importance of timely contesting a case and the consequences of failing to do so, highlighting the significance of procedural compliance in legal proceedings.

( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 24. 2. 1999 published on 2. 8. 1999. Annexure-7 to the petition made in adjudication Case No. 200 of 1997 by respondent No. 1 and it is prayed that the award in question be set aside and the subsequent order dated 15. 2. 2000, Annexure-12 to the petition passed by respondent No. 1 in Misc. Case No. 155 of 2000 be also quashed.

( 2 ) HEARD. Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Shashi Nandan appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 at considerable length. Since, both the parties have advanced the arguments touching the whole gamut of the case, it was agreed that the petition be decided on merits at this stage. Accordingly, I proceed to dispose of this writ petition on merits.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 2 Surendra Mishra was admittedly appointed as Apprentice in the erstwhile establishment of the petitioner on 1st July, 1977. His services were terminated on 30,10. 1978, He raised a dispute with regard to the termination of his services. By order dated 19. 1. 1996 (Annexure-5 to the petition), the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur. In exercise of the powers conferred on him by notification dated 29. 8. 1990 referred the dispute under the provisions of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur for award. Notices were issued to the parties. The respondent No. 2 placed his point of view before the labour court but the petitioner employer in spite of service failed to submit the written statement. Ultimately on 24. 2. 1999, the respondent No. 1 declared the award which was published on 2. 8. 1999. The respondent No, 2 moved an application for the enforcement of the award on 16. 8. 1999, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner sent an application by post on 27. 9. 1999 mentioning therein that the fact of the proceedings initiated before respondent No. 1 and the award came to the knowledge of the petitioner for the first time on 16. 8. 1999 when the respondent No. 2 moved an application for enforcement of the award. This application was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 155 of 2000. After hearing the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2, it was dismissed on 15. 2. 2000 (Annexure-12) on the ground that the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the delay of nine months in moving the application for setting aside the award. It appears when the respondent No. 2 insisted for payment of the arrears of salary for the period 1. 11. 1978 to 29. 2. 2000, amounting to Rs. 14. 98. 000 the present petition has been filed.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner made various submissions touching the merits of the case and challenged the proceedings which culminated into an award in favour of the respondent no. 2. It was urged that the respondent No. 2 who was appointed only as an apprentice had no right to hold the post and therefore, he could not have challenged the order of termination dated 30. 10. 1978 and that since the petitioner had not worked even for 240 days in a calendar year, therefore, his termination was not legally wrong. Sri Ranjit Saxena pointed out that the reference to the labour court was made after more than 17 years and since dispute raised was highly belated the respondent No. 1 should have dismissed the same outright. It was further urged that the ex parts award came into being without effecting service on the petitioner-employer and, therefore, it is bad in law. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 repelled all the above submissions. He pointed out that the petitioner had been duly served and had the full knowledge of the adjudication case in which after moving an application for time. It deliberately avoided to appear. It was further urged that the award has become final and, therefore, respondent No. 2 cannot be deprived to reap the fruits under the awa