TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte award passed when a party was absent; (ii) Whether the Tribunal had become functus officio on publication of the award so as to lack power to entertain the application to set it aside.
Issue (i): Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte award passed when a party was absent.
Analysis: The scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires adjudication of industrial disputes through a procedure that secures justice between the parties and promotes industrial peace. Section 11(1) confers wide authority on the Tribunal to regulate its procedure as it thinks fit, subject to the Rules. Rule 22 permits ex parte proceedings only where a party fails to appear without sufficient cause, and Rule 24(b) gives the Tribunal powers analogous to a civil court in relation to adjournments. Where sufficient cause prevented appearance, the ex parte award is treated as having been made without a fair hearing. In such a situation, the Tribunal has not merely the power but the duty to set aside the ex parte award and restore the matter for hearing.
Conclusion: The Tribunal had jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte award.
Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal had become functus officio on publication of the award so as to lack power to entertain the application to set it aside.
Analysis: Proceedings under a reference do not conclude until the award becomes enforceable under Section 17A, read with Section 20(3). An award becomes enforceable only after thirty days from publication under Section 17, and until then the Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the reference. Since the application to set aside the ex parte award was filed before expiry of that period, the Tribunal was competent to entertain it. The power exercised was procedural and incidental to correcting an order passed without affording a proper hearing, not a review on merits. The plea of functus officio was therefore rejected.
Conclusion: The Tribunal had not become functus officio and retained jurisdiction to decide the application.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's order failed, and the ex parte award was validly reopened for fresh adjudication by the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal empowered to regulate its procedure and decide disputes judicially has incidental authority to set aside an ex parte award for sufficient cause shown before the award becomes enforceable, and its jurisdiction continues until that stage.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
