AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
It appears that an award has been passed against the petitioner, vide Reference No. 200/98 by the Central Government Industrial No. 2, Dhanbad. Since the petitioner workman did not appear and the management also did not appear, the award has been answered and the reference is disposed of on the basis of "no dispute", since none of the parties appeared.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he has not received any notice of the reference and the reference was made by the Union Government. It is also submitted that the management also has no notice of the same. However, since the award was passed after 30 day and the application has been filed after delay of about one year, in that view of the matter, by the impugned order dated 20.3.2006, the Tribunal rightly rejected the prayer with observation that since the award has been published after expiry of 30 days in the Gazette of India and there is a scope of making second reference, it cannot be restored.
Hence, the workman is at liberty to raise a fresh dispute before the appropriate Government in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of.