activists would be looking after the issues relating to the Labour dispute pertaining to the members of the Union. Therefore, on the particular date when the case was listed before the Labour Court concerned representative of the petitioner Union could have been preoccupied in attending any pressing work. However, atleast some alternative arrangement could have been made. Without making any alternative arrangement simply restraining themselves from attending the Court and after an exparte order is passed coming to the Court belatedly with a condone delay petition cannot be automatically accepted. However, in order to meet this kind situation, as unless the condone delay petition is entertained and the delay is condoned, exparte award passed by the Labour Court cannot be restored and, by this the worker, whose valuable right would be at stake, unless the Labour Court decide the industrial dispute raised before it on merits. The same ought to have been entertained. In this regard the findings given by the Division Bench judgment cited supra can very well be pressed into service, as the exparte award passed by the Labour Court, cannot be an award passed within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act. If any petition is filed to restore the exparte award or to set aside the same, the same should have been entertained and the Labour Court must have explored the possibility of deciding the Industrial Dispute. Therefore, for all these reasons, even though reason for non-appearance, as adduced by the petitioner, cannot be taken as an effective reason for entertaining the application to condone the delay, the same could have been taken in terms of cost.
