Full Judgment
1. The counsel for the petitioner employer states that the petitioner is unable to file the fresh address of the respondent workman and seeks adjournment to move an application for substituted service.
2. Exactly the same request was made on 23rd November, 2010 when the petition was listed last. It appears that the petitioner employer after obtaining the ex parte ad interim order of stay of proceedings before the Industrial Adjudicator does not want to have the present matter proceeded with.
3. The writ petition impugns the award dated 11 th February, 2009 of the Industrial Adjudicator dismissing the application of the petitioner for examining further witness to prove that the respondent workman during the pendency of dispute before the Industrial Adjudicator is employed elsewhere. The Industrial Adjudicator dismissed the said application for the reason that the petitioner employer had in the past also been permitted to examine the witness in this regard and who had deposed against the petitioner employer and the petitioner employer could not be permitted to re-examine the said witness. It was also observed that the petitioner employer had been repeatedly filing applications delaying the disposal of the adjudication before the Industrial Adjudicator. It is revealed that the proceedings were pending before the Industrial Adjudicator since the year 2003.
4. Notice of the writ petition was issued and as aforesaid, the proceedings before the Industrial Adjudicator stayed and remain stayed. Though the respondent workman was at one stage reported to have been served and proceeded against ex parte but subsequently, it was observed that the report of service was doubtful and as such the respondent workman was directed to be served again.
5. I have enquired form the counsel for the petitioner employer as to whether any enquiries were made from the counsel for the respondent workman before the Industrial Adjudicator as to the whereabouts of the respondent workman. The counsel has no instructions.
6. However, the fact remains that inspite of the proceedings before the Industrial Adjudicator having remained stayed for the last two years, the respondent workman has also not bothered to appear before this Court on his own.
7. In the circumstances, it is not deemed expedient to keep this writ petition pending. The petitioner is directed to along with a copy of this order appear before the concerned Industrial Adjudicator on 27 th May, 2011. The date before the Industrial Adjudicator has been enquired form the counsel for the petitioner employer. She has no instructions in this regard also. Subject to the petitioner employer paying costs of `15,000/- to the respondent workman before the Industrial Adjudicator, the Industrial Adjudicator shall grant one opportunity to the petitioner employer to examine the witness sought to be examined and application in which regard was dismissed. It will however be subject to the condition that the responsibility for producing the said witness shall be on the petitioner employer only and the matter will not be adjourned for the said purpose on any ground whatsoever.
8. Considering the delay already caused to the proceedings, the Industrial Adjudicator is also requested to dispose of the reference under Section 10 on or before 30 th November, 2011.
9. Accordingly, the earlier interim order of stay of proceedings is vacated and the petition is disposed of.
10. The Registry is directed to immediately return the record of the Industrial Adjudicator.