JUDGMENT
G.C. Garg, J.
1. Demand notice dated November 22, 1986, Annexure P-1 was served by respondent No. 1-Soma Vati claiming that her services had been illegally terminated, with effect from September 15, 1986 and that she was entitled to be regularised. This gave rise to a dispute between the parties. The dispute between Soma Vati and the Management of Director, Archives Department, Punjab, Chandigarh was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh, under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act).
2. Claim statement, written statement, replication and re-joinder to the replication were filed by the parties before the Labour Court on their respective claims. The following issue was framed by the Labour Court-
“Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally by the management. If so, to what effect and to what relief she is entitled to, ifany? OPW”
3. Soma Vati appeared as her own witness as AW-1 on February 27, 1990 and produced experience certificate, Annexure A-1, the award of the Labour Court, Annexure-A2 and the application made by her for regularisation of services, Annexure-A3. She claimed that her services were terminated without serving a show cause notice or charge-sheet and that no retrenchment compensation was paid. The case was adjourned to April 5, 1990 for evidence of the management, but as none appeared on its behalf on that date it was ordered to be proceeded ex parte. Ex parte arguments were heard on April 12, 1990 and the case was fixed for orders for April 26, 1990 when award Annexure P-5 was made. It was held that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. Back wages at the rate of 80% were awarded as the workman was working on daily wage basis.
4. On April 26, 1990 itself, an application was made on behalf of the management that due to strike of the ministerial staff, none could appear before the Labour Court on April 5, 1990 when it was proceeded ex parte. It was thus prayed that the matter be re-considered and the department allowed to defend the case. The prayer obviously was that ex parte order dated April 5, 1990 be set aside and it be permitted to lead evidence. On notice, the application was contested by the workman by contending that the evidence was not produced intentionally and the absence was deliberate. Factum of the staff being on strike on April 5, 1990 was not denied. It was rather stated that the staff above the level of Assistants was on duty during strike period.
5. The Labour Court in these circumstances concluded that there was hardly any good reason for the absence of the management on April 5, 1990 as any officer could appear or intimation could have been sent. The other ground that weighed with the Labour Court in refusing to set aside the ex parte order was that the award had already been given and the same had in the meantime been published in the official gazette dated June 19, 1990. The application was resultantly dismissed by order dated July 23, 1990. Annexure P-7.
6. A reading of order Annexure P-7 clearly brings out that two factors which weighed with the Labour Court in dismissing the application for setting aside the ex parte order and consequently the ex parte award, are that the award had already been published in the Official Gazette dated June 19, 1990 and that the absence of the management on April 5, 1990 was intentional and thus, there was hardly any justification to reconsider the award.
7. It is by now well settled that there is no express provision in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder giving jurisdiction to the Labour Court to set aside the exparte order or award. It is a rule of statutory construction that such a power is necessary to discharge its functions effectively for the purpose of doing justice between the parties. The words ‘shall follow such procedure as the arbitrator or other authority may think fit’ occurring in Section 11(1) of the Act are of widest amplitude and confer ample power upon the Labour Court and other authorities to devise such procedure as the justice of the case demands. The power of the Labour Court to render an exparte award carries with it the power to enquire whether or not there was sufficient cause for the absence of a party at the hearing. And in case it is found that the absence was for a sufficient cause, to set aside the ex parte award is inherent to exercise of jurisdiction by the Labour Court. It is equally settled that the Labour Court on making an award does not be-come functus officio. It retains the jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte order/award till the award made by it becomes enforceable. An award of the Labour Court becomes enforceable on expiry of a period of 30 days from the date of its publication in the official gazette. Thus, if an application for setting aside the ex parte order/ award is made before the award becomes enforceable, irrespective of the fact whether it has been published or not, the application is required to be decided on its own merits. If the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the party making the application was prevented by a sufficient cause from appearing at the hearing, a duty is cast on it to set aside the ex parte order and consequently the ex parte award. In the present case, there is no doubt that the application for setting aside exparte award was made on April 25, 1990, i.e., the date when the award was made and much before the publication thereof in the official gazette. The Labour Court had thus the jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte award and what seems to have weighed with the Labour Court in refusing to set aside, is that the same had already been published in the official gazette. This reasoning of the Labour Court as recorded in order Annexure P-7 refusing to set aside the ex parte award is thus erroneous.
8. As regards the other aspect for declining the application for setting aside the ex parte award, it may be noticed that April 5, 1990 was the first date for producing evidence by the management. It is on this date the management was proceeded ex parte. It is not disputed and in fact is admitted that there was strike in the Department on that day and none could appear on that count. The application for setting aside the ex parte order has been made within a period of 21 days and on the very date the award was made. The view of the Labour Court is too technical when it said that the absence of the management on April 5, 1990 was intentional and there was hardly any justification for setting aside the order. The observations of the Labour Court that if the ministerial staff had proceeded on strike, some Gazetted Officer conversant with the facts of the case could appear on behalf of the management for its evidence or a request could be made for adjournment, in my view, are not justified to conclude that the absence of the management on that date was intentional. When there is strike in the department, the officers may be busy in dealing with that situation and not be in the know of the date fixed in the case or even may not be in possession of the file relating to that case. It is not at all disputed, rather admitted, that the staff upto the rank of Assistants was on strike on that date. The application had been made within a short span of 21 days of the ex parte order. The Labour Court was not justified in concluding that the absence of the management was intentional and there was no justification for setting aside the ex parte order/ award. In my view, sufficient cause has been shown for setting aside the ex parte order dated April 5, 1990, and consequently the ex parte award dated April 26, 1990, Annexure P-5.
9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the exparte order dated April 5, 1990 is set aside and resultantly, ex parte award dated April 26, 1990 Annexure P-5 and order dated July 23, 1990, Annexure P-7, are also set aside. The application of the management for setting aside the ex parte order dated April 5, 1990 is allowed subject to costs of Rs. 1,500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent workman.
10. In the circumstances, the case is remitted back to the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh for deciding the reference afresh on merits after affording opportunity to the petitioner-management to produce its evidence. The parties through their counsel have been directed to appear before the Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh on July 17, 1992.