Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Narain and Sri Shyam Narain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 11-7-1997 and order dated 27-10-2000 as well as the order dated 31-12-2004. It appears that respondent-workman who claimed himself to be a seasonal employee since 1989. He was not permitted to work then he approached the Lower Court under the Industrial Dispute Act and after receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed a reply / written statement and the award was given by the Court by order dated 11-7-1997 and was published on 13-1-1998, when the petitioner came to know, he filed an application for recall of the said order that was not being considered then he filed a writ petition for the aforesaid reliefs.

3. Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already filed written statement and subsequently due to the illness, he could not appear before the Court but in spite of this fact, it was an obligation upon the labour Court to pass speaking and reasoned award on the basis of relevant record. As this has not been done, therefore, the award of the lower Court is liable to be set aside. He has cited various decisions which are being mentioned as under :

Management of Tiruttani Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Thiruvalangadu v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras and another, 2002 (1) LLJ page 589.

“18. On a combined regarding of the above judgements, it would be clear that even though the management remained absent, the first respondent was required to consider the dispute and pass award giving reasons. Of course, such an award should be a speaking order on merits and based on materials available before the first respondent. While passing the award there must be a judicial application of mind and the order must be based on acceptable materials. In view of the above settled positions, I do not find any error in the first respondent in proceeding with the Industrial Dispute and disposed of the same.

22. In my considered view the non-consideration of Ex. W-2 by first respondent would vitiate the award. It is true that the management remained ex parte and not even a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the management. However, the reason as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition for the non-appearance of the management before the first respondent is that the summon appears to have been received by the then Administrator who has not brought the same to the notice of the Labour Consultant and therefore only the management could not appear before the first respondent. It is to be noted that except the said one summon, no further opportunity was given to the management. Therefore, I am inclined to accept the said reason adduced by the management for its non-appearance before the first respondent to defend the industrial dispute. Since the award was passed on merits, the writ petition came to be filed. In view of my finding that the award could not be sustained for non-consideration of the materials before the first respondent, in the interest of justice the matter has to be remanded back to the first respondent for fresh adjudication. The management also should be given an opportunity to put forth its case only with reference to the stand taken by the management to dispute the demands raised by the Union as contained in Ex. W-2.”

M/s Laxmi Palace (Cinema) v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Varanasi and others, 2005 (100) FLR page 325.

“10. Reverting to the case in hand, it is luculent from a bare perusal that the award consists of four paragraphs. The first paragraph contains details of parties and dispute referred to it. The second and third paragraphs deal with the dates fixed in the case in Labour Court. The fourth and last paragraph contains conclusion. The decisions discussed above, do point to the requirements of tak