WORKMEN OF GOWRIBIDANUR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE LIMITED Vs. MANAGEMENT OF GOWRIBIDANUR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Karnataka, Bangalore, dated 14-8-1985 in Misc. Application No.3 of 1984 rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte award passed in I.D. No.2 of 1977 and for restoration of the original reference for disposal on merits.

(2.) It is not necessary to go into details of the case for the purpose of considering whether the 2nd respondent was justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner for restoration of the reference.

(3.) On 3-9-1984, the petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal even upto 4 P.M. and, therefore, the case was posted to the next day for passing an award. On 4-9-1984, the Tribunal passed an award rejecting the reference. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Misc. Application No.3 of 1984 for setting aside the ex-parte award. The Tribunal, after considering the application, held that there was no sufficient cause fornon appearance on 3-9-1984 and it, therefore, rejected the application. It is no doubt true that the petitioner had knowledge of the rejection of the reference on 21-9-1984 as admitted by the petitioner. But it is only after a lapse of 3 months the petitioner filed the application for setting aside the exparte award. What the law contemplates is the right to file an application to set aside the exparte award 30 days after the publication of the award. However, it is also a fact that at the relevant point of time, the award had not yet been published, but the Tribunal held that the non-publication of the award and the resultant, delay in filling the application for setting aside the exparte award cannot be regarded as a sufficient cause. I do not think that the Tribunal was justified in coming to such a conclusion because the law itself provides (fiat an application could be filed for restoration only after 30 days subsequent to the publication of the award. Therefore, the Tribunal was in error as regards the question of delay.