D.P. Singh, J.

Though this writ petition is listed for orders, counsel for both the parties state that otherwise the case is ripe for hearing and the time consumed for disposing of the stay vacation application and the writ petition itself would be the same, therefore, the writ petition be finally disposed of. The office report dated 6th March, 2003, also confirms that the case is ripe for hearing. In view of the aforesaid the writ petition is being finally disposed of.

2. Heard Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K. M. Garg, learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent.

3. This writ petition is directed against two orders. An ex-parte labour court award dated 21.8.1986 and order dated 16.8.1987 by which recall application for recalling the aforesaid award was rejected.

4. The Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was employed as an operator in the erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board (now U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.) on daily wage basis w.e.f. 10th September, 1978. Since the workman was not allowed to work from 2.6.1979 he approached the Conciliation Officer and upon a failure report the matter was referred u/s 4K to the Labou