The court emphasized the necessity for a fair hearing and thorough examination of evidence in labor disputes, reaffirming that decisions must not be arbitrary but based on substantial merits.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Shri Karshit Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for State - respondents and Shri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

2. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award dated 16.08.2022 (published on 10.10.2022) passed by the respondent no. 1 as well as the order dated 24.050.2022 passed by the respondent no. 1.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent no. 3 was appointed as Helper in the year 2002 in the petitioner - establishment. On 23.08.2008, the respondent no. 3 was given a charge sheet for misbehaviour with the H.R. Manager of the petitioner and directed to be remain present for participation in domestic inquiry. After finding the explanation of the respondent no. 3 to be unsatisfactory, the respondent no. 3 was directed to be present for domestic inquiry on 16.09.2008, in which the respondent no. did not participate and therefore, again second show cause notice was issued on 13.10.2008 and after concluding the domestic inquiry, the respondent no. 3 was terminated from service vide order dated 22.01.2009. Thereafter, an industrial dispute was raised and the State Government referred the matter raising industrial dispute for adjudication before the labour court. On 19.08.2013, the respondent no. 3 filed written statement stating that his services have illegally been terminated, to which the petitioner filed its reply. After exchange of pleadings, the respondent no. 1, vide award dated 16.08.2022, reinstated the respondent no. 3 with full back wages and other consequential benefits. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under section 21(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was rejected by the respondent no. 1 vide order dated 24.05.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a recall application, which was also rejected by the respondent no. 1 vide order dated 28.04.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award is non-speaking, unreasoned and devoid of merits. The court below has not adjudicated the claim of the workman and without discussing the claim and counter claims of the parties, the impugned award has been passed. He further submits that the court below has also erred in rejecting the recall application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands, which is incorrect as from the perusal of the order sheet, it is evident that the petitioner was present on every occasion from 1.01.2022 to 17.05.2022, but due to unforeseen reason, the petitioner could not attend on 24.05.2022, on which date the judgement in the award was reserved. He further submits that the court below has passed the ex parte award without examining the case on merits and without taking or discussing any evidence of the respondent no. 3 to prove that he was unemployed after termination for the last 13 years. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgements of this Court in M/s Laxmi Palace (Cinema) v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Varanasi & Others [2005 (105) FLR 325] and M/s Devyani Beverages Limited v. Labour Court - II, Ghaziabad & others [2006 (108) FLR 426]. He prays for allowing the writ petition.

5. Rebutting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that the petitioner had illegally and arbitrarily terminated the services of the respondent no. 3 without making compliance of the provisions contained under section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further submits that the court below has passe