JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner-employer, aggrieved by an award of the Labour Court, Meerut dated 29th September, 1986 in Adjudication Case No. 326 of 1985 and also the order dated 2nd December, 1987, whereby the application of the employer for setting-aside ex-parte award was rejected, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. On receipt of the reference the Labour Court issued notices to the employer and the employee and the parties have exchanged their pleadings. The workman has set up the case, that he has worked for the whole crushing seasons 1979-80 and 1980-81 and that arbitrarily his services were terminated on 4th December, 1982, whereas several junior workmen employed by the employer are still working. It is also alleged that the employers do not maintain any record nor do they record attendance of the workmen, pay slips and leave card etc. They also keep on the record the names of such workmen who even have never worked in their establishment. On the other hand the employer has set up a case, that the workman has worked only seven days in crushing season 1979-80 and nine days in crushing season 1980-81.
3. The labour fixed the dates for proceeding the matter by fixing 18th July, 1986 on which date the employers were directed to produce the record and the next date was fixed as 26th July, 1986 for the purpose. On 26th July, 1986, the representative of the employer had to go out of station and he directed the Pairokar, Sri Balbir Singh, to produce the record. The Pairokar reached to the Court at about 12.30 p.m., when he was informed by the Peshkar that the case, had been adjourned on the request of the workman's representative for the next date fixed for final hearing i.e., 7th October, 1986. In the last week of August, 1986 he employers came to know that the case proceeded ex-parte on 26.7.1986. The award was reserved and ultimately the award was published on 27.2.1987. Aggrieved thereby the employers filed an application for setting-aside the ex-parte award on 24th March, 1987, which application has been rejected by the Labour Court as stated above on 2nd December, 1987.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-employer has argued that it is categorically stated in the application for setting-aside award and the order dated 6.7.1986. That as per order dated 21.6.1986, the date was changed to 18.7.1986 for issued and disposal of application 13-D and for final hearing on 7.10.1986. Even assuming that the employers did not participate in the proceeding prior to 7.10.1986, there was no justification for the Labour Court to prepone the case and reserve the award. In fact, when the employer acquired knowledge of ex-parte award they filed application after 7.10.1986.
5. The Labour Court has considered the case set up by the parties and rejected the explanation submitted by the employer for setting-aside ex-parte award on the ground that the employers were careless in pursuing their case and their explanation cannot be accepted that on 26th July, 1986, since the representative was not available the Pairokar visited the Court and it is on the information submitted by the Peshkar (Reader of the Court) that 7.10.1986, has been fixed as the hearing date. The Labour Court has asked for explanation from the Reader. It has been denied by the Reader that he gave any such information.
6. The Labour Court has recorded its finding while rejecting the application for setting-aside ex-parte award. The order refusing to set-aside ex-parte award cannot be said to be suffering from any error of law, particularly in view of the fact that on 29th August, 1986, the representative of the employers has applied for certified copy of the proceedings. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not stated in the order as to on what date the certified copy of the proceedings was made available and therefore, merely on this ground that the representation applied for certified copy on 29th August, 1986 means that the employers were aware of the ex-parte order on 29th August, 1986 cannot be believed. Once, the Labour Court passed order on 26th July, 1986, the Labour Court has passed order to proceed ex-parte. Nothing further was to be done except to consider the written statement submitted by the employers and the stand taken by them.
7. I do not find any error committed by the Labour Court when it considered the case set upon by the employer in the written statement and the answers to the reference in favour of the workman directing the employers to reinstate the workman with continuity of service with backwages. There is nothing on the record, that the work and conduct of the workman is not satisfactory. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award.
8. Lastly, it is submitted by the employers' Counsel that the workman has not worked after 15th November, 1986, when the interim order dated 9.2.1988 was modified. Since, the workman has not worked for the said period 'no work no pay' principle should have been applied.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the workman shall be entitled to half of the wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.
10. With the aforesaid modification this writ petition is dismissed.