SARBJIT SINGH Vs. NANKANA SAHIB TRANSPORT COMPANY P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY notification dated September 17, 1970, the Punjab Government referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal: Whether the termination of services of Sarbjit Singh and Jaswant Singh is justified and in order? If not, what relief/exact amount of compensation they are entitled to.

(2.) THE workmen put in their statement of claim in which it had been stated that the services of Sarbjit Singh and Jaswant Singh had been terminated illegally and without any jurisdiction after holding an ex parte enquiry; that the inquiry officer was a biased person and the workmen had been victimised on account of trade union activities, etc. It was prayed that they may be reinstated with full back-wages, as they had remained unemployed ever since their services were terminated. The Industrial Tribunal sent a notice to the respondent-management to appear before it on October 26, 1970, at Ludhiana and file its written statement. In spite of the fact that the notice had been served on the management, nobody appeared on their behalf. The case was called first at 10. 30 a. m. , then at 11. 40 a. m. , and last of all at 2. 30 p. m. , after the entire work of the Industrial Tribunal had finished. The Tribunal took ex parts proceedings against the management and after recording evidence made an award on November 16, 1970. The respondent-management made an application to the Industrial Tribunal on January 4, 1971, praying for the setting aside of the ex parte award on the ground that Ranjit Singh, manager, who had been authorised to appear on behalf of the management, was confined to bed and was unable to appear before the Tribunal. The management had also authorised the secretary of the company, Kishan Singh, to appear before the Tribunal but he also could not appear as he was suffering from vertigo and other illnesses. Medical certificates were produced in support of that assertion. This application was opposed by the workmen who pleaded that after making the award the Tribunal had become functus officio in respect of the reference and could not decide the application for the setting aside of the ex parte award. It was also pleaded that there was no sufficient cause shown by the respondent-management for their absence on October 26, 1970, and it was not a fit case in which the ex parte award should be set aside. The Tribunal did not frame any issue, nor took evidence but passed an order setting aside the ex parte award and allowing the respondent-management to put in their written statement on July 6, 1971, at Ludhiana. That order has been challenged by the workmen in this petition. Written statement has been filed by respondent No. 1 opposing the pleas stated in the writ petition.

(3.) THE first point for determination is whether the Industrial Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain the application for setting aside the ex parte award. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has no inherent power to direct a matter to be heard afresh after an order was passed. Reliance is placed on a judgment of a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Gungaram Tea Company Ltd. v. Second Labour Court 1967--II L. L. J. 325 : (1966) 32 F. J. R. 8 at page 11, wherein it was held as under-The Tribunal is a statutory authority. It has, therefore, no inherent power to direct a matter to be heard afresh after an order was recorded that evidence was closed. It is abundantly clear that the Tribunal gave sufficient opportunity both to the respondent-workmen as also to the union to appear before it and present their case with regard to the application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act. This opportunity was not availed of and there is no reason whatsoever why the Tribunal which is a statutory body should be allowed to hear a matter afresh, when the statute by which it was created does not expressly or by implication confer any such power upon it.