IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice in proceedings, ruling that failure to serve notice justifies setting aside an ex-parte award.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Dr. R.K. Srivastava and Sri Nishchal Jagdhari, the learned counsel for petitioner in Writ (C) No. 1004625 of 2008, Sri Satish Chandra Kashish, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ (C) No. 1001062 of 2013, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Sri Virendra Mishra, the learned counsel for the private opposite party Concrete Fabricators Karmchari Union, Burhwal, Barabanki in both the Writ Petitions and perused the records.

2. Writ (A) No. 1004625 of 2008 had been dismissed for want of prosecution by means of an order dated 08.04.2019. An application for recall (IA-No. 7 of 2024) along with an application for condonation of delay (IA No. 6 of 2024) in filing recall application have been filed by the petitioner. The applications are supported with duly sworn affidavits. Accordingly, the applications are allowed. Delay in filing recall application is hereby condoned and the order dated 08.04.2019 is hereby recalled. Writ (A) No. 1004625 of 2008 is restored to its original number.

3. Writ (C) No. 1004625 of 2008 has been filed challenging validity of an order dated 11.09.2008, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-2, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow rejecting an application dated 20.12.2007 filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 17.10.2007 on the ground that the same was passed without service of notice of proceedings on the petitioner after transfer of the same from Gorakhpur to Lucknow. Writ (C) No. 1001062 of 2013 has been filed challenging a recovery certificate dated 09.10.2012 sent by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Faizabad to the Collector, Barabanki for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- in furtherance of an ex-parte award dated 17.10.2007.

4. As the order under challenge in Writ (C) No. 1001062 of 2013 is consequential to the order dated 11.09.2008, both the petitions are being decided together.

5. A perusal of the order-sheet of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal indicates that the petitioners-employer was appearing in the proceedings when the same were pending initially before the Industrial Tribunal-2 at Lucknow and it is recorded in the order sheet that on 18.01.2000 and the learned Tribunal had heard submissions on behalf the parties and had reserved the award. However, the Presiding Officer was changed before the award could be delivered and the new incumbent of the office passed an order dated 25.07.2000 for rehearing the matter. On 14.02.2001 the matter was transferred to Industrial Tribunal-VI, Gorakhpur and it was re-transferred to Industrial Tribunal-2, Lucknow on 18.07.2006 where it was registered afresh as Award Case No. 302 of 2006. The Industrial Tribunal had sent notice to the petitioner through registered post, which was not received back unserved and therefore the service of notice was held to be sufficient. The matter was heard ex-parte and an ex-parte award was passed on 17.07.2007. It was published on 14.11.2007.

6. On 20.12.2007 the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 17.10.2007 stating that the notice sent to it after transfer of the case to Lucknow was not served upon it and, therefore, it could not appear in the proceedings. The award was ex-parte and it should be set aside.

7. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-2, Lucknow by the impugned order dated 11.09.2008 on the ground that the Industrial Tribunal has no authority to set aside an order which has been passed after taking into consideration the merits of the case.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was continuously participating in the proceedings and submissions had been advanced on its behalf and the award had been reserved. After the Presiding Officer was changed after hearing submissions again submissions were advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Thereafter, the case was tra