An ex parte award made without proper service of summons is a nullity.

1. THE petitioner, a public limited company, carries on the business of growing, manufacturing and selling tea. The second respondent Amar Nath Chatterjee was employed by the petitioner company as an export assistant and was retrenched from petitioner's services with effect from 1st february, 1972. The reason of the termination was that the said second respondent became surplus owing to losses in the petitioner's export and trading business. The second respondent was offered pay in lieu of notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The second respondent disputed the said retrenchment and did not accept the offer of the petitioner notice of pay and compensation. An industrial dispute was raised by the second respondent through the Commercial Employees Union on the issue of the termination of the services of the second respondent. The said dispute was referred to the first Labour Court for adjudication by the government of West Bengal on 29th december, 1973. The First Labour Court by its award dated 19th March, 1977 held that the said reference was incompetent as the Commercial Employees union did not represent the petitioner's workmen and hence could not raise any industrial dispute on their behalf. Thereafter, another reference was made on the 20th September, 1982 for adjudication by the Seventh Industrial Tribunal the issue as to whether the termination of service of the respondent is justified and to what relief, if any, he is entitled.

2. SOMETIME in July, 1983 the second respondent addressed a letter dated 23th july, 1983 to the petitioner enclosing a copy of the award made by the Seventh industrial Tribunal on 27th June, 1983. The said award it is alleged, was passed ex parte without any notice to the petitioner. The award directed reinstatement of the second respondent with 50 percent of his wages calculated from 1st february, 1972 to the date of his joining. On or about 16th December, 1983, the petitioner received a Memorandum dated 13th December, 1983 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner, West Bengal enclosing a copy of, a letter dated 2nd September, 1983 from the second respondent to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, West Bengal and calling for comments on the said letter. By its reply dated 20th December, 1983 the petitioner stated that as the said award had not been proclaimed and as no notice to proclamation or copy of the award had been given to the petitioner, no cognizance could be taken of the award. By a further Memorandum dated 3rd March, 1983, the Assistant Labour Commissioner referred to his earlier communication and called for a reply. The petitioner by its letter dated 8th March, 1984 reiterated his earlier contention. By a Memorandum dated 23rd March, 1984 the Assistant Labour Commissioner asked the petitioner to attend a discussion or conference on 3rd April, 1984 about the non-implementation of the said award. The petitioner's representative attended such conference and reiterated his contentions. It is alleged that the Assistant labour Commissioner without refuting such contentions stated that unless the petitioner implemented the award, steps to enforce the award would be taken. It is alleged that after the respondent illegally threatened on 3rd April, 1984 to enforce the said award the petitioner moved this Court on 15th May, 1984. Rule nisi was issued and interim order was also passed staying the operation of the said Award dated 20th June, 1983 till the disposal of the rule.

Mr. Arijit Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that in this case the petitioner did not receive any proper or valid notice as required by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 requiring the petitioner to appear before the Industrial Tribunal. Since no notice was served on the petitioner, the petitioner did not take any 'steps thereafter to ascertain what happened before the Tribunal. It