The importance of evidence adduced by the parties, the consequences of not appearing before the Tribunal, and the factors to be considered in awarding back wages.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 13. 1. 1995 passed by Labour Court and prayed that respondent No. 4 be directed to pay back entire amount recovered from the petitioner in execution of the award.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that the respondent Abdul Qudoos was working with the petitioner. While the petitioner alleged that he had abandoned his services, the workman's claim was that his services were illegally terminated. Following industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court:"whether the workman Shri Abdul Qudoos abandoned his services or his services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect. "

( 3 ) AFTER receipt of reference, the Labour Court sent notices to the parties. While the workman appeared, the petitioner did not appear and did not take part in the proceedings. The petitioner was proceeded ex parte. The tribunal, after relying upon the evidence of the workman and appreciating the same, held that the workman was terminated from service in violation of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act and directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service with full back wages and all consequential benefits.

( 4 ) THE petitioner submits that he learnt about the award sometime in August, 1995 and thereafter he made an application for setting aside the ex parte award which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 17. 11. 1995 on the ground that it was barred by limitation as the Labour Court had became functus officio.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has challenged the award on the ground that the petitioner was proceeded ex parte without being served in accordance with law. No notice through registered cover was sent to the petitioner. The service of the petitioner through ordinary process was manipulated by the respondent/workman in connivance with the process server. The notice does not bear signature of the petitioner or any of its officer as token of the receipt of summons. Respondent No. 4 seemed to have put some fictitious signatures and managed to get stamp of the petitioner affixed on it. The next contention is that the award was passed without following the principles of natural justice. There was no cause of action in favour of the respondent/workman. His services were never terminated as he himself had abandoned his services in January, 1988 and he never reported to join his duty thereafter. Even subsequent to award, the respondent did not choose to join his duty despite reminders and notices from the management and continued to blackmail the management.

( 6 ) IT is argued by counsel for the petitioner that dismissal of application for setting aside the ex parte award by the Tribunal was unjustified. The Tribunal does not became functus officio even after publication of award and the Tribunal should have exercised jurisdiction and should have set aside the award. When the latest decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Sangham tape Company Vs. Hansraj 2004 LLR 1098 was brought to the notice of the petitioner, the petitioner contended that this decision was given by two Judges' bench of the Supreme Court while an earlier decision in (2001) 10 SCC 535 Anil sood Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court II was given by a Three Judges Bench of supreme Court and Supreme Court in that case held that Labour Court had power to set aside the exparte award if sufficient cause is shown by the party which was prevented from appearing before it. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2005) 2 SCC 673,supreme Court held that where a coordinate Bench of co-equal strength differed from the decision of earlier Bench of Supreme Court or doubted the view taken by the Coordinate Bench of equal strength, the proper course permissible and op