Non-supply of written statement of the workman to employer by the Tribunal rendered the ex parte award a nullity. The Tribunal did not become functus officio and the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge committed a mistake in holding so.

RAKESH TIWARI, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred challenging the correctness and validity of the judgment and order dated 13th June, 2016, passed in W.P. No. 24999(W) of 2015, on the ground that the impugned judgment and order is bad in law since the Writ Court could not appreciate that ex-parte award, appended as Annexure P-15, has been passed in violation of the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 20-B of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 1958 Rules) and, as such, the award itself is unsustainable in law.

2. The order impugned has also been assailed on the ground that the Writ Court failed to consider that the Tribunal, being a creature of statute has to perform its statutory functions, as provided in sub-rule (5) of Rule 20-B of the 1958 Rules which reads:

"Statement of case or written statement.

(5) A copy of the statement of case or the written statement shall be served on the first party or the second party, as the case may be, by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court within seven days from the date on which copies of the statement of case or the written statement, as the case may be, are filed by making it over to the party concerned or to its authorised representative in the Office of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court on a date and time fixed for the purpose and intimated to the party concerned by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court."

3. It is sought to be argued on the basis of Rule 20-B of the Rules as amended applicable in State of West Bengal the Tribunal ought to have discharged its statutory duty by supplying the representative of the employer with a copy of the claim or written statement filed on behalf of the union and non-compliance of the provisions of law renders the award a nullity, being in violation of not only the principles of natural justice but also in violation of the statutory rules, as no person having knowledge of the statutory provisions could have acted in the manner in which the Tribunal had acted.

4. It is prayed that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the award dated 13th April, 2007 may be set aside as it suffers from errors apparent on the face of record and law and the order impugned should also be set aside for the reason that the learned Single Judge could not appreciate the second proviso of Rule 27(iii) of the 1958 Rules in its proper perspective which reads:

"Rule 27(iii):

For sufficient cause set aside after notice to the opposite party or parties as the case may be, the ex-parte award or an award on the footing that the industrial dispute under reference is no longer in existence either of its/his own motion or on the application of any of the parties :

Provided further that no application for review under clause (iii) shall be entertained on the expiry of the 15th day from the date of the award."

5. According to learned counsel for the appellant the provisions contained in Rule 27(iii) and the second proviso aforesaid, are clear and unambiguous and for this reason the interpretation sought to be given by the learned Writ Court is nothing but a conscious endeavour to stretch the statutory provisions beyond the said Rule. It is submitted that a plain reading of Rule 27(iii), with the second proviso thereof, leave no room for any doubt that no interpretation was called for as there was no ambiguity in understanding the statutory provisions which is attracted to the extent for setting aside an ex-parte award and not beyond that and that in fact time frame prescribed in the second proviso is in no manner applicable for the reason that it relates to review of an award and not for setting aside an application for review.

6. It appears from the affidavit in opposition filed in Writ Court on behalf of the respondent Union that stand taken by the company was that it had entered appearance through a representative, and was served with the order of reference containing the issues of the matter in dispute. The show cause notice was issued on