ORAL ORDER

1) RULE. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent-Union waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2) The present writ petition is filed, inter alia, seeking for the following prayers;-

“ a) a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be granted quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 28/07/2017 (Annexure D) as well as order dated 5/4/2018 (Annexure F)

b) pending admission and final hearing of this petition kindly stay the operation and implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 28/07/2017 (Annexure D) as well as order dated 05/04/2018 (Annexure F).”

3) At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Amin appearing for the petitioners has submitted that since the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (“the CGIT”), is without hearing the petitioners, and, it is an ex parte, the matter will be remanded to the CGIT, Ahmedabad. By the impugned award dated 28.07.2017, the CGIT, Ahmedabad has passed an award in favour of the respondent-Union, whereby, the petitioners are directed to appoint them on the place of their initial appointment, within a period of

60 days from the date of publication of the award.

4) Against the aforesaid award, the petitioner preferred an Misc. Application (CGITA) No. 40 of 2017 for recalling the award on the ground that the department had never received the statement of claim and the CGIT without issuing the notice, had closed the defense of the petitioners, despite the fact that they did not receive the notice. The said application was also rejected vide order dated 05.04.2018.

5) The aforesaid orders are subject matter of challenge before this Court.

6) Learned advocate Ms. Amin appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners, though were issued notice in the reference, did not receive the statement of claim. It is submitted that since the award is an ex parte, the same may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the CGIT as there are serious issues that the present petitioners would like to point out.

7) In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Rao appearing for the respondent-Union, has submitted that the impugned award may not be disturbed, as the workmen of the respondent-Union were illegally terminated, and, hence, after verification of the relevant facts, the CGIT has directed the petitioners to reinstate them in service.

8) This Court has perused the impugned award dated 28.07.2017. In paragraph No. 2, it is observed by the CGIT that despite the service on the first party by way of a Registered Post, the first party did not prefer to submit the written statement and, therefore, on 06.01.2017, the case was proceeded further ex parte.

9) Thus, it is not in dispute that the impugned award is an ex parte award, further the application for recalling the award, which is filed by the present petitioners, was also rejected.

10) In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the CGIT for deciding afresh after hearing both the respective parties on merits. The impugned award dated 28.07.2017 passed in Reference (CGITA) No. 115 of 2013 and the order dated 05.04.2018 passed in Misc. Application (CGITA) No. 40 of 2017 are hereby quashed and set aside.

11) It is directed that the CGIT shall pass a reasoned order on merits, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Since the said reference is of the year 2013, it is expected that the CGIT shall make efforts to decide the matter within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.

12) Petition stand disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

13) It is clarified that the petitioners shall deposit a cost of R