Ex parte award recall: industrial adjudicatory bodies may set aside awards on sufficient cause despite Gazette publication.

An industrial adjudicatory body empowered to proceed ex parte also has incidental jurisdiction to consider an application to set aside an ex parte award on sufficient cause being shown, even after publication of the award in the Official Gazette. The doctrine of functus officio does not bar such recall where the award remains open to challenge on that ground. On the facts, a bona fide dispute about the hearing date, prompt action after learning of the disposal, and an uncontroverted explanation for absence justified setting aside the ex parte award. The award and the High Court order were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application for setting aside an ex parte award after publication in the Official Gazette. (ii) Whether the ex parte award deserved to be set aside on the facts for sufficient cause shown for non-appearance.

Issue (i): Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application for setting aside an ex parte award after publication in the Official Gazette.

Analysis: The Rules governing industrial adjudication were treated as conferring power on the adjudicatory body to proceed ex parte, and that power carried with it the ancillary or incidental authority to examine whether sufficient cause existed for absence and, where justified, to set aside the ex parte award. The doctrine of functus officio was rejected in relation to an ex parte award that remained open to challenge on sufficient cause being shown. The provisions applicable to the Punjab Rules were held to be in pari materia with the corresponding Central Rules, so the earlier binding decision recognising this power applied fully.

Conclusion: The Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application for setting aside the ex parte award.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex parte award deserved to be set aside on the facts for sufficient cause shown for non-appearance.

Analysis: The record showed a bona fide dispute about the date fixed for hearing, with the appellant asserting that he had been informed of a later date and had appeared accordingly. The application to recall the ex parte order was made promptly after discovery of the disposal, and the explanation for absence was not effectively controverted. On these facts, refusal to set aside the ex parte award was held to be erroneous even on merits.

Conclusion: The ex parte award ought to have been set aside on the facts.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded, the ex parte award and the High Court's order were quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal after giving both sides an opportunity to lead evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an industrial adjudicatory body is empowered to proceed ex parte, it also has the incidental jurisdiction to consider and allow an application to set aside an ex parte award on sufficient cause being shown, notwithstanding publication of the award.

---