Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology vs Judge, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court and Others

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the ex parte award dt. 15.02.2004 and the order dt. 18.04.2006, whereby application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte award was rejected.

The application for setting aside of the ex parte award was based on the premise that original claim was filed against Sukhadia University, Udaipur and Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and subsequently when Maharana Pratap Agriculture University, Udaipur was established, it was added as respondent No. 3 before the Labout Court.

When the notice of the claim petition was received by the petitioner- University, it authorised the Registrar of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner to also contest the case on their behalf and a communication dt. 20.06.2000 to this effect was written to him by Deputy Secretary of the Government. A copy of the communication dt. 20.06.2000 has been placed on record which states that u/s 46 of the Agriculture University, Udaipur Act, 2000, all suits or proceedings against the new University shall be defended by the old University. Cases already pending in different Courts were not instituted against petitioner-University and naturally those cases cannot be defended by that University. It appears that the Rajasthan Agricultre University, Bikaner was duly represented before the Labout Court through its Advocate but no such instructions were pleaded by their Counsel before the Labout Court when the ex-parte award was passed on 15.02.2004. Thus, the matter was decided ex-parte against the petitioner as it could not defend itself.

Facts of the case indicate that respondent No. 2 was appointend on 28.02.1979 on the post of Agriculture Supervisor and was removed from 20.05.1981 since he failed to qualify in the regular selection. Though the petitioner obviously could not properly defend its case before the Labour Court, it is always appropriate that the case is decided on merits rather than being decided against statutory University like petitioner for default.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Labour Court dt. 15.02.2004 refusing to set aside the ex-parte award is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the award dt. 18.04.2006 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court, Bikaner for deciding it afresh within six months from the date of receipt/production of certified copy of this order. The Labour Court may not grant unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties except when it is absolutely necessary so to do. The petitioner shall pay respondent No. 2 Shyam Singh a sum of Rs. 1000/- as costs before the Labour Court.