TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF TEXTILES Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN Industrial Dispute arose between Shri Hanuman Prasad Saini (hereinafter called "the workman"), respondent No. 2, and the Technological Institute of Textiles, Bhiwani (hereinafter called "the management"), petitioner and at the instance of the workman, question of termination of his services was referred to Labour Court, Rohtak, for adjudication under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called "the Act" ). The matter was fixed before the Labour Court on 8th April, 1983, camp at Bhiwani, for evidence of the management after the workman had already concluded Kis evidence. On 8th April, 1983, the workman failed to appear before the Labour Court. Although he informed the Labour Court through telegram that he was ill, the Labour Court decided the case. On 8th April, 1983, ex parte and, without going into the merits of the case, the reference was ordered to be dismissed for non-prosecution on the part of the workman. Subsequently, the workman sent an application dated 1st July, 1983, for restoration of the proceedings in the reference in question contending that he suddenly fell ill on 7th April, 1983, that he informed the Labour Court through telegram with regard to that fact and also sent a medical certificate thereafter. To explain the delay in filing that application he said that in the middle of the month of April, 1983, appointment of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was set aside by this court as a result of which everything became fluid and he was informed that a new presiding officer may be appointed after summer vacation. That application of the workman was allowed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak and vide his order dated 2nd August, 1985 (Annexure P-8), he held that the workman had been able to establish sufficient cause for his absence on 8th April, 1983, that on account of this court's judgment rendered on 13th April, 1983, by which, appointment of Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad, was quashed, there was a lot of confusion in the minds of the general public about the functioning of such courts in Haryana for which reason a case for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte order of the Labour Court was made out. Consequently, the reference was fixed for evidence of the management for its adjudication on merits at which stage it was dismissed for non-prosecution. Through present writ petition, the management has assailed the said order dated 2nd August, 1985, of the Labour Court, Rohtak, and has sought its quashing.

(2.) IT has been held by the Labour Court that sufficient cause was shown for the absence of the workman on 8th April, 1983. If the workman had suddenly fallen ill on 7th April, 1983, the said conclusion of the Labour Court cannot be treated to be incorrect. The Labour Court was intimated through a telegram and medical certificate supporting illness of the workman also followed.

(3.) AN ex-parte decision is possible under Rule 22 of the Industrial Tribunal (Central) Rules, 1957, which provides a fictional position that it may proceed as if the party had duly attended or had been represented. Rule 24 thereof also embraces applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in certain respects. Even otherwise, when passing of ex parte award has been made permissible, in exercise of the principles of natural justice, ancillary powers of setting aside of ex parte decisions should also be presumed. Where a party is prevented from appearing at the hearing due to a sufficient cause, and is faced with an ex parte award, it is as if the party is visited with an award without a notice of the proceedings. An award without a notice to a party is nothing but a nullity. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has not only the power but also the duty to set aside the ex parte award and to direct the matter to be heard afresh. This conclusion of ours finds support from Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, 1981-11 LLJ 327, wherein it was held as under (headnote of AIR)':