JUDGMENT
G.C. Garg, J.
1. Respondent No. 1 was the employee of the petitioner-Society. He absented himself with effect from December 1, 1985. His services were ultimately terminated by order dated November 30, 1987. This order became final as it was not challenged. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1988, respondent No. 1 moved an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’) claiming wages amounting to Rs. 17,600/- for the period July 1, 1985 to February 29, 1988, at the rate of Rs. 550/- per month. The petitioner-Society was proceeded ex-parte by order dated September 12, 1989. Application of respondent No. 1 was consequently allowed ex-parte. The workman thereafter applied for execution of the order and claimed wages in the sum of Rs. 17, 6000/-. It is at this stage, the petitioner acquired knowledge of ex-parte order passed against it and consequently applied for selling aside the ex-parte order, on April 18, 1990. This application is pending disposal before the Labour Court. The Labour Court by order dated July 20, 1990 framed issueson theapplication for setting aside ex-parte order and posted the case for evidence of the petitioner- management While passing thcorder fixing the matter forevidencc, the Labour Court further directed that execution of the order sought to be set aside shall stand stayed subject to petitioner’s furnishing a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 18,000/- within 15 days. The petitioner-management seeks revision of this order through this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner-society could not be ordered to furnish bank guarantee and there was no occasion for the Labour Court to give such direction as evidence is still being recorded in the application for setting the ex-parte order. At the most, argued the learned counsel, an order directing the petitioner to furnish security could be passed.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parlies, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. An ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner-society. It is yet to be found as a fact, whether it (the employer) had been duly served with a notice of the application under Section 33C(2) of the Act or not. The case of the employer is that services of the workman had been terminated in November, 1987 as the workman remained absent from December 1, 1985. Application under Section 33C(2) of the Act was filed in the year 1988 i.e., after a lapse of about three years and all these contentions are yet to be gone into by the learned Labour Court; therefore, order of furnishing bank guarantee will serve no body’s purpose. At the most, in the circumstances of the present case, the petitioner- society could be asked to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 17,600/- as claimed by the workman in his application under Section 33C(2) of the Act, to the satisfaction of the Labour Court, especially having regard to the fact that claim bad been made by the workman after a lapse of about three years.
4. In view of what has been observed above, this petition is allowed and the order passed by the Labour Court on July 20, 1990 is modified to the extent that execution of the order dated September 12, 1989 passed by the Labour Court shall remain stayed subject to the furnishing of security by the petitioner-society in the sum of Rs. 18,000/- within six weeks from today to the satisfaction of the Labour Court. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.