Summary
The Supreme Court upheld setting aside an ex parte reinstatement award and directing fresh adjudication. The Tribunal failed to fix and intimate the time for serving the workman’s written statement on the company as required by Rule 20B(5). Expiry of thirty days after publication did not by itself remove the power to recall the award. Rule 21 did not invariably require a further notice before proceeding ex parte, but that did not cure the separate service breach.
Issues
- Whether publication of the award more than thirty days earlier barred recall.
- Whether the Tribunal complied with mandatory service of the written statement.
- Whether Rule 21 required a further notice before proceeding ex parte.
Provisions considered
- Rule 20B(5), West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958The Tribunal had to fix and intimate a date and time for service of the statement within seven days. Neither occurred, violating the rule and natural justice. (¶¶ 6, 12, 13)
- Rule 21, West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958The rule permits, rather than compels, proceeding ex parte on non-appearance without sufficient cause. A further notice is not universally mandatory, though the Tribunal may direct one in the circumstances. (¶¶ 7, 14)
Held
- The cited decisions did not establish that an Industrial Tribunal loses all power to entertain recall merely because thirty days have passed after publication. The objection based on becoming functus officio was rejected. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- Rule 20B(5) imposes a service duty on the Tribunal. The company’s absence when the workman filed his statement did not dispense with fixing and intimating a time for receiving it. The failure constituted a clear breach and denial of natural justice. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Rule 21 does not require a further notice in every case before an ex parte hearing. Nevertheless, the independent violation of Rule 20B(5) justified setting aside the award and proceeding afresh. (¶ 14)
- The High Court’s direction for fresh consideration after hearing both parties was upheld; the workman’s appeal was dismissed. (¶¶ 2.4, 14, 16)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court’s order setting aside the ex parte award and directing fresh adjudication upheld. Parties to bear their own costs.