The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a judicious examination of evidence before making a decision, emphasizing the need for evidence and discussion to support legal conclusions.

( 1 ) A dispute between the respondent No. 3-Devendra Singh (workman) and the petitioner M/s devyani Beverages Limited (employer) was referred to the Labour Court which was to the effect that whether the termination of the workman from the post of Checker by order dated 10. 12. 1997 was in accordance with law or not; and if not, to what relief would the workman be entitled to. Proceedings before the Labour Court had commenced and a perusal of the order-sheet (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) show that on service of notice to the employer (petitioner), a written statement was filed by them on 1. 10. 1999; which was taken on record. Since the workman did not appear, by the same order, after taking service of notice on the workman to be sufficient, it was directed that the right of the workman to file his written statement was forfeited. Thereafter, since there was no Presiding Officer posted in the Labour Court for more than two years, the matter was adjourned from time to time. After the new Presiding Officer joined, the workman filed his written statement on 23. 7. 2002. Fresh notice to the employer was issued by the Labour Court on 2. 8. 2002, which was returned back unserved and thus the Labour court proceeded exparte against the petitioner. After hearing the workman, and on the averments made in his written statement, by an award dated 10. 2. 2003, the Labour Court allowed the claim of the workman, which was published on 21. 10. 2003. The petitioner thereafter filed a restoration application on 3. 2. 2004, with the prayer for recalling the ex-parte award. Such application was rejected by the Labour Court on 26. 10. 2004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order and the ex-parte award, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Besides this, the petitioner has also challenged the consequential order dated 21. 9. 2004 by which recovery has been initiated against the petitioner and also the earlier order dated 23. 7. 2002 by which the written statement of the workman had been taken on record by the Labour Court, ignoring its earlier order dated 1. 10. 1999.

( 2 ) I have heard Sri Shakti Swaroop Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as Miss Bushra Maryam on behalf of the contesting respondent No. 3 (workman), and have perused the record. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged -between the contesting parties and, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission, stage itself.

( 3 ) THE submission of Sri Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner is that (i) the written statement of the workman could not have been accepted on 23. 7. 2002 once the Labour Court, vide order dated 1. 10. 1999, had already forfeited his right of filing his written statement, which order had not been challenged and had become final; (ii) the summons sent by the Labour Court on 2. 8. 2002 were never served on the petitioner, and as such the restoration application ought to have been allowed and the ex-parte award recalled; (iii) the entire case of the workman, as stated in his written statement, has been accepted without the Labour Court even verifying its correctness; and (iv) no finding of its own has been recorded by the Labour Court while allowing the claim of the workman.

( 4 ) MISS Maryam, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent-workman has, however, submitted that in the circumstances, since the registered notice sent to the employer on 2. 8. 2002 had been returned unserved, the service on the petitioner was rightly taken to be deemed sufficient and as such, when the petitioner did not appear, the award has correctly been passed under Rule 12 (9) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957. It has also been contended that since the restoration application of the employer had been filed after much delay, the same was rightly rejected by the Labour Court. ( 5 ) A perusal of the order-sheet reveals that the written stateme