AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Manisana Singh, J.—In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has Challenged an order of the Industrial Tribunal, Silchar, made on 30.12.92 in Misc Case No. 18 of 1991 dismissing the application of the Petitioner to set aside the ex parte award made on 30.4.91 in Reference case No. 5 of 1991.
The Industrial Tribunal at Silchar made an ex parte award on 30.4.91 In Reference Case No. 5 of 1991. The Petitioner made an application to the Tribunal for setting aside the award on the ground that the award made without notice to the Petitioner. The Tribunal dismissed the petition by holding that the Petitioner received the notice basing on Exhibit-3, a postal acknowledgment card. Hence, this petition.
The question which arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to set aside in ex parte award. In Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Others, The Supreme Court has held that Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to set aside its ex parte award where a party is prevented from appearing at the hearing due to sufficient cause. Although, there is no express provision in the Act or Rules framed thereunder giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to set aside its ex parte award, the Tribunal or body should be considered as invested with such ancillary or incidental powers as are necessary to discharge its function effectively for the purpose of doing justice between the parties. The principle laid down in this case was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satnam Verma Vs. Union of India (UOI), by stating that where an ex parte award is made and published in the official Gazette, the Industrial Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain the application for setting it aside if sufficient cause is shown for absence of appearance on the date on which the award was made. It is not correct to say that the industrial Tribunal becomes functus officio once the award is published in official Gazette, be it ex parte one and the appropriate Government alone could set it aside. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to set aside its ex parte award and direct the matter to be heard afresh.
The next question which, therefore arises for consideration is whether the Petitioner could show that the ex parte award was made without notice to him.
As already stated, the Tribunal relied on Exhibit-3, a postal acknowledgement card. The evidence of the Petitioner, Manager of M/s Tea Agency and Trading Centre is that he did not receive the notice of the case, and that Exhibit-3 does not bear his signature. The evidence of DW-2, a postal peon, is that he delivered a registered letter bearing No. 5955 to the Manager of M/s Tea Agency and Trading Centre on 2.2.91, that he took signature on the delivery slip as well as acknowledgement card, and that there was no witness while delivering the letter. But he has not stated that the signature on the acknowledgement card is the signature of the Petitioner. In his cross-examination he has also stated that Post Master handed over him a registered letter No. 5955 for delivery to the Manager. In Exhibit-3, there is no mention of number of the registered letter, On the facts in the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the signature on the acknowledgment card has not been proved to be the signature of the Petitioner, Accordingly, it is held that the Petitioner did not receive the notice.
In the result, the petition is allowed and the order dated 30.12.1992 dismissing the application for setting aside the ex parte award as well as the ex parte award dated 30.4.91 are set aside. The Tribunal shall hear the matter afresh after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard.
The petition is allowed and disposed of.
No costs.