JUDGMENT
F.I. Rebello, J.
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. Heard forthwith.
2. On consideration of the impugned order the learned Labour Court has proceeded on the footing that after the Award is published there is no power in the Labour Court to set aside the ex parte award.
3. Rule 26(2) of the Rules framed in the State of Maharashtra under the Industrial Disputes Act, provides that, if within 30 days of the receipt of a copy thereof a party applies to set aside this Award, the Labour Court has jurisdiction to set aside such an Award, order or decision, if sufficient cause is made out. The said Rule reads as under:
“26. Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may proceed ex parte. -(1) If without sufficient cause being shown, any party to a proceeding before a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or an Arbitrator fails to attend or to be represented the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may proceed ex parte.
(2) Where any award, order or decision is made ex parte under Sub-rule (1), the aggrieved party, may, within thirty days of the receipt of a copy thereof, make an application to the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or an Arbitrator, as the case may be, to set aside such award, order or decision. If the Board, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator is, satisfied that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the aggrieved party, it or he may set aside the award, order or decisions so made and shall appoint a date for proceeding with the matter:
Provided that no award, order or decision shall be set aside on any application as aforesaid unless notice thereof has been served on the opposite party.”
The Central Government has also framed Rules under the I.D. Act. The relevant rules read as under:
“22. If without sufficient cause being shown, any party to proceedings before a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal, National Tribunal or arbitrator fails to attend or to be represented, the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal, National Tribunal or arbitrator may proceed, as if the party had, duly attended or had been represented.”
“24. In addition to the powers conferred by the Act, Boards/Courts, Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:
(a)……….
(b) granting adjournment.”
4. The Central Rule had come up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. C.G.I.T., : therein the Apex Court held that on an application made to the Tribunal, it can pass suitable orders since the Tribunal does not become functus officio on passing an award before 30 days of the the publication in view of the provisions of Sections 17-A and 20 of the Act.
5. It is true that under the Rules framed by the Central Government under the I.D. Act, 1947, the Apex Court has declared the law namely that after publication of the Award, the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court would have no jurisdiction. However, the Bombay Rules framed under the I.D. Act provide otherwise. It was sought to be contended on behalf of the respondents by their learned counsel that the said Rule would be in contravention of Section 17-A of the I.D. Act. Presently Rule 26 as framed has not been held to be, ultra vires of Section 17-A. Until some Court declares that the said Rule is ultra vires, the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court would be clothed with the power to exercise jurisdiction under Rule 26. The Industrial Court, Labour Court cannot decline to do so.
6. In so far as the merits of the matter is concerned, except for a cryptic observation in para 6 there is no discussion as to why the case of the petitioner has been rejected on merits.
7. In the matter of ex parte awards, specially Courts functioning under Legislation meant for the benefit of weaker sections and which are called social welfare legislation the Courts must see that justice is done and not proceed on technical grounds. Sufficient cause in such matter should be given a wider meaning so as to ensure justice between the parties. In the light of that the following order:
(i) The impugned order dated November 1. 2000 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court to consider the Miscellaneous Application (I.D) No.24 of 1998 on its own merits and dispose it of according to law. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
(ii) Considering that the matter is of the year 1991 the Labour Court is directed to dispose of the application within 3 months from today. Till disposal of the application both parties are directed to maintain status quo in so far as Award is concerned as of today.
P. A. to issue ordinary copy of this order to the parties.