2012 (10) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ough on merits, as, as recorded in the order, though notice for hearing had been issued to both the respondents, when this matter was called, none appeared on their behalf. One of the respondent M/s. Mithila Malleables (P) Limited filed a ROM No. E/ROM/47/2010 in respect of this order requesting for recall of the Order dated 17-3-2010 so far as it related to them and rehearing of the matter, on the ground that though they had appointed Shri G.S. Bhanga, Advocate, as their Counsel, only on receipt of the order, they came to know that he did not appear at the time of hearing. Subsequently, the respondent have filed an application for restoration No. E/ROA/142/2011 praying that their earlier ROM application dated 17-3-2010 may be treated as ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....its and that she relies upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Meerut v. Continental Cement Co. reported in 2010 (261) E.L.T. 532 (Tri. - Del.) = 2011 (23) S.T.R. 94 (Tri.-Del.) and Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. C.C.E., Delhi-IV reported in 2011 (266) E.L.T. 70 (Tri.-Del.), that in the case of C.C.E., Meerut v. Continental Cement Co. (supra), the Tribunal has held that when the appellant sought adjournment several times without assigning proper justification, the appeal had been rightly decided ex parte and the adjournment cannot be sought indefinitely. She, therefore, pleaded that this is not the case for recall of the order. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... same principles were applied in relation to the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was held that where a party was prevented from appearing at a hearing due to sufficient cause and was faced with an ex parte award, it was as if the party was visited with an award without notice of the proceedings. Where an Industrial Tribunal proceeded to make an award without notice to a party, the award was nothing but a nullity. In such circumstances, the Industrial Tribunal had not only the power but also the duty to set aside the ex parte award and to direct the matter to be heard afresh. The rule in question [Rule 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957] provided that without sufficient....