Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—This group of writ petitions arises between the petitioners and the workmen against an award and the consequential proceedings initiated pursuant to the said award. The facts leading to the filing of these petitions is necessarily required to be narrated for effective adjudication and final disposal of the controversy which is pending between the parties for the last more than two decades. For facility, Writ Petition No.13026 of 2006 is being taken as the leading case.

2. It transpires that on 1.11.1986 the workman was appointed on a temporary basis and his services was terminated on 1.4.1987. The workman, being aggrieved, raised a dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court issued an ex parte order dated 1.9.1994 directing reinstatement with back wages. It transpires that the petitioners had appeared before the Labour Court and had filed the written statement but, at some stage of the adjudication proceedings, the representative of the petitioners made a statement that he had no instruction from the employers and, on that basis, the Labour Court proceeded and passed an ex parte award.

3. When the petitioners came to know about the ex parte award, a writ petition was filed which was dismissed by a judgment dated 17.5.1995 on the ground of laches as well as on the ground of alternative remedy, namely, that the petitioners had a remedy of filing an application for the recall of the ex parte award. The petitioners, being aggrieved, preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and also filed an application dated 25.6.1995 before the Labour Court for setting aside the award. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of by a judgment dated 27.11.1995 directing the Labour Court to decide the application of the petitioners for the recall of the ex parte award in accordance with law on merits, without being prejudiced by the order of the High Court, whereby, the writ petition of the petitioners against the award was dismissed.

4. It may be stated here, that at the time when the petitioners had moved an application dated 5.6.1995 for setting aside the ex parte award, an application was filed for staying the recovery proceedings which had been initiated pursuant to the award. The Labour Court, by an order dated 4.7.1995, stayed the recovery proceedings.

5. Subsequently the Labour Court, by an order dated 14.12.1995, rejected the application for the recall of the award, against which, the petitioner preferred writ petition No.18265 of 1995, which was allowed by a judgment dated 29.11.2004, and the matter was remanded again to the Labour Court to decide the matter in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court. The Writ Court found that the Labour Court had not considered the directions of the Supreme Court and that no reasons had been assigned while rejecting the application for the recall of the award.

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the Labour Court again considered the matter and, by its order dated 25.10.2005, rejected the application again holding that the Labour Court had become functus officio and had no power to decide the application for the recall of the ex parte order since the said application had been moved after the expiry of one month from the date of the publication of the award. The petitioners, being aggrieved by this order, has filed the present writ petition No.13026 of 2006.

7. The workman has filed Writ Petition No.18670 of 1995 for the quashing of the application filed by the employer for the recall of the ex parte order as well as against the order dated 4.7.1995 whereby the Labour Court had stayed the recovery proceedings. The workman also filed Writ Petition No.19560 of 1999 praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the Additional Labour Commissioner to implement the award and to issue the recovery certificate pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court. In this writ petition, an interim order dated 12.5.19