Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. They have submitted their written arguments and case laws.

2. This petition has been filed challenging validity and correctness of the award dated 8.3.1995 passed by the labour Court in adjudication case No. 90 of 1993.

3. Services of respondent No. 2-workman are claimed to have been illegally terminated with effect from 1.1.1990, in respect of which he raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government to the labour Court where it was registered as adjudication case No. 90 of 1993.

4. Case of the workman before the labour Court was that he was appointed in 1963 by Zila Parishad, Kanpur on the post of Pond Moharrir. He continuously worked upto 31.12.1989 and his services have been illegally terminated without any reason with effect from 1.1.1990.

5. It appears from the award that the employers in spite of service of notices/summons through registered post, neither filed written arguments nor appeared in the proceedings before the labour Court in the aforesaid adjudication case. The workman filed his written statement and gave his evidence.

6. The labour Court therefore appears to have proceeded under Rule 12(9) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 and held that since statement of the workman had not been controverted, as such from the evidence and pleadings of the workman, the Court was bound to hold that concerned workman was appointed in 1963, he worked upto 31.12.1989 regularly and his services have been illegally terminated without compliance of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The labour Court by the impugned award dated 8.3.1995 directed the employers to reinstate the workman in service with full back wages apart from payment of cost of Rs. 100/-. The award was published on the notice board on 14.7.1995 and was sent to the parties on 15.7.1995. As per provisions of Section 6-A of the Act, the award became enforceable with effect from 13.8.1995 after expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication.

7. It also appears from record that a restoration application was filed by the petitioner-Zila Panchayat on 25.2.1997 i.e. after lapse of 30 days from the date of publication of the award.

8. Contention of the counsel for petitioner is that respondent workman was never employed by Zila Panchayat and he fraudulently claimed to be an employee of the petitioner and thus industrial dispute raised by him was no basis, that labour Court has misdirected itself in holding that respondent No. 2 was a workman of the petitioner without there being any evidence of his appointment and termination, therefore, factum of employment of the workman in Zila Panchayat is not proved.

9. As regards receipt of notices/summons is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel for petitioner that respondent workman manipulated the service and no notice from the labour Court was ever received by the officers of Zila Panchayat, as such they could not appear before the labour Court to contest the case. But the Presiding Officer without taking any evidence established the relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and has passed the impugned ex parte award dated 8.3.1995.

10. Second contention of the counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner acquired knowledge of ex parte award on 14.8.1995 and filed a restoration application within 30 days from the date of knowledge which has been appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, therefore, it cannot be said that the restoration application is beyond time.

11. It is lastly contended by the counsel for petitioner that ex parte award dated 8.3.1995 was thereafter amended by the State Government on 1.5.1996 i.e. after lapse of one year three months, as such it became enforceable from 1.5.1996 and it is this date from which the limitation will run and in any case the petitioner had moved restoration application earlier i.e. o