The State Of Tripura Vs. The Province Of East Bengalunion Of India--Intervener
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the impugned order of the High Court, dated 15th March, 2002, whereby Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26446/2001, filed by the appellants, was dismissed. In the said writ petition, the appellants had challenged the order of the Labour Court dated 25th May, 2001 whereby the application filed for restoration had been dismissed. The appellants had the grievance against the ex-parte award of the Labour Court, dated 10th March, 1999, which had been made in favour of the workman-respondent No.4 herein. By the said award, the Labour Court, noticing that several opportunities were given to the employer to submit the written statement but the same was not filed, directed reinstatement of the workman in continuation of his services since 14th March, 1997 with full pay during the period of unemployment with all benefits. A reference under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court was made by the State Government to decide whether the termination of services of the workman in the post of plumber since 14th March, 1997 was illegal and/ or unjustified and, if so, to what relief was he entitled to and what directions were necessary in this respect. In the writ petition, another relief claimed was to set aside the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, dated 27th June, 2001, whereby the said officer had cancelled an earlier order dated 17th May, 2001. In the order of reference above referred the name of the employer shown was M/s. Santosh Medical College. According to the appellants the said college was run by the Managing Trustee, Maharaji Educational Trust, i.e. the appellant before us, and it was necessary to make the Chairman of the Trust as employer. On an application filed by the appellants, by order dated 17th May, 2001 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the Chairman and Managing Trustee, Maharaj Educational Trust was also added as a second employer to the reference. The order dated 17th May, 2001 was, however, cancelled, on the application of the workman, in terms of the aforenoted order dated 27th June, 2001. 2. According to the appellants, the second order dated 27th June, 2001 which had the effect of deleting the appellants from the order of reference was without jurisdiction and the High Court, without going into this question, disposed of the writ petition by holding that the application for setting aside the ex-parte order was rightly dismissed in terms of the order dated 25th May, 2001. The appellants further claimed that after the order dated 17th May, 2001, they had also filed written statement before the Labour Court. There is also some controversy about the date of the publication of the award dated 10th March, 1999. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and the workman-respondent No.4, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the dispute about the termination of services of workman-respondent No.4 is decided afresh by the Labour Court on merits, after giving opportunity to the appellants and the aforesaid college, i.e. M/s. Santosh Medical College, to contest the claim of the workman on merits. It would be open to the appellants to take such pleas as may be available to them in law. We may only indicate that according to the appellants, respondent No.4 was never their employee. It is strenuously disputed by the workman-respondent No.4. While permitting the appellants to contest on merits the dispute before Labour Court, it is also necessary to impose heavy costs on them so as to compensate the workman for the delay that has occurred in the last about five years.
1[ds]3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and the workman-respondent No.4, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the dispute about the termination of services of workman-respondent No.4 is decided afresh by the Labour Court on merits, after giving opportunity to the appellants and the aforesaid college, i.e. M/s. Santosh Medical College, to contest the claim of the workman on merits. It would be open to the appellants to take such pleas as may be available to them in law. We may only indicate that according to the appellants, respondent No.4 was never their employee. It is strenuously disputed by the workman-respondent No.4. While permitting the appellants to contest on merits the dispute before Labour Court, it is also necessary to impose heavy costs on them so as to compensate the workman for the delay that has occurred in the last about five years.
### Instruction:
Evaluate the case proceeding to forecast the court's decision (1 for yes, 0 for no), and elucidate the reasoning behind this prediction with important textual evidence from the case.

### Input:
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the impugned order of the High Court, dated 15th March, 2002, whereby Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26446/2001, filed by the appellants, was dismissed. In the said writ petition, the appellants had challenged the order of the Labour Court dated 25th May, 2001 whereby the application filed for restoration had been dismissed. The appellants had the grievance against the ex-parte award of the Labour Court, dated 10th March, 1999, which had been made in favour of the workman-respondent No.4 herein. By the said award, the Labour Court, noticing that several opportunities were given to the employer to submit the written statement but the same was not filed, directed reinstatement of the workman in continuation of his services since 14th March, 1997 with full pay during the period of unemployment with all benefits. A reference under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court was made by the State Government to decide whether the termination of services of the workman in the post of plumber since 14th March, 1997 was illegal and/ or unjustified and, if so, to what relief was he entitled to and what directions were necessary in this respect. In the writ petition, another relief claimed was to set aside the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, dated 27th June, 2001, whereby the said officer had cancelled an earlier order dated 17th May, 2001. In the order of reference above referred the name of the employer shown was M/s. Santosh Medical College. According to the appellants the said college was run by the Managing Trustee, Maharaji Educational Trust, i.e. the appellant before us, and it was necessary to make the Chairman of the Trust as employer. On an application filed by the appellants, by order dated 17th May, 2001 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the Chairman and Managing Trustee, Maharaj Educational Trust was also added as a second employer to the reference. The order dated 17th May, 2001 was, however, cancelled, on the application of the workman, in terms of the aforenoted order dated 27th June, 2001. 2. According to the appellants, the second order dated 27th June, 2001 which had the effect of deleting the appellants from the order of reference was without jurisdiction and the High Court, without going into this question, disposed of the writ petition by holding that the application for setting aside the ex-parte order was rightly dismissed in terms of the order dated 25th May, 2001. The appellants further claimed that after the order dated 17th May, 2001, they had also filed written statement before the Labour Court. There is also some controversy about the date of the publication of the award dated 10th March, 1999. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and the workman-respondent No.4, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the dispute about the termination of services of workman-respondent No.4 is decided afresh by the Labour Court on merits, after giving opportunity to the appellants and the aforesaid college, i.e. M/s. Santosh Medical College, to contest the claim of the workman on merits. It would be open to the appellants to take such pleas as may be available to them in law. We may only indicate that according to the appellants, respondent No.4 was never their employee. It is strenuously disputed by the workman-respondent No.4. While permitting the appellants to contest on merits the dispute before Labour Court, it is also necessary to impose heavy costs on them so as to compensate the workman for the delay that has occurred in the last about five years.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and the workman-respondent No.4, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the dispute about the termination of services of workman-respondent No.4 is decided afresh by the Labour Court on merits, after giving opportunity to the appellants and the aforesaid college, i.e. M/s. Santosh Medical College, to contest the claim of the workman on merits. It would be open to the appellants to take such pleas as may be available to them in law. We may only indicate that according to the appellants, respondent No.4 was never their employee. It is strenuously disputed by the workman-respondent No.4. While permitting the appellants to contest on merits the dispute before Labour Court, it is also necessary to impose heavy costs on them so as to compensate the workman for the delay that has occurred in the last about five years.
