JUDGMENT
Anjani Kumar, J.
1. These writ petitions raise common questions of facts and law therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The Writ Petition No. 5772 of 1980 will be the leading case as learned counsel for the petitioner has argued on the basis of the facts stated in the said writ petition.
2. The petitioner aggrieved by an order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut dated June 16, 1989 whereby the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut allowed the application filed by the workman for setting aside ex parte proceedings as per order dated April 1, 1980 and for restoration of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has no power to recall the order to proceed ex parte as there is no provision which confers such jurisdiction on the Industrial Tribunal.
3. The question regarding power of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court in setting aside ex parte order have been dealt with by Apex Court in the case Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 606 : 1980 Supp SCC 420 : 1981-I-LLJ-327 paragraphs 6 and 11 of which are relevant.
4. The Industrial Tribunal has also entertained the writ petition beyond the period prescribed under the Rules. This has been objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioner- employer. The Apex Court has answered the aforesaid argument in the following words in paragraph 11 of the Grindlays Bank’s case (supra) 1981-I-LLJ-327 at p. 330:
” 11. The language of Rule 22 unequivocally makes the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to render an ex parte award, conditional upon the fulfilment of its requirements. If there is no sufficient cause for the absence of a party, the Tribunal undoubtedly has jurisdiction to proceed exparte. But if there was sufficient cause shown which prevented a party from appearing, then under the terms of Rule 22, the Tribunal will have had no jurisdiction to proceed and consequently, it must necessarily have power to set aside the ex parte award. In other words, there is power to proceed ex parte but this power is subject to the fulfilment of the condition laid down in Rule 22. The Power to proceed ex parte under Rule 22 carries with it the power to enquire whether or not there was sufficient cause for the absence of a party at the hearing.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two decisions of this Court in Deen Dayal Sodh Sansthan, New Delhi v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1997-I-LLJ-982 (All) and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Kanpur v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1997-III-LLJ (Suppl)-763 (All). Both these judgments proceed on the law laid by the Apex Court in Grindlays Bank case (supra).
6. In this view of the matter the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal do not warrant any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions in question have no force and are accordingly dismissed.