IMPORTANT POINT
The management's failure to appear and contest the case justified the ex-parte Award for reinstatement of the workman with back wages, as per the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A. B. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4. No one appears for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6.

2. The management (writ petitioner) has made a challenge to the ex-parte Award dated 24.08.2015 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal) in Reference Case No. 1/2014. The petitioner has also made a challenge to the order dated 22.06.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 1/2016, which was an application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, for modification/vacation of the ex-parte

Award dated 24.08.2015.

3. The case of the workman (respondent No. 6) is to the effect that she was a permanent worker at Burni Breas Tea Estate, Hailakandi and that she was terminated illegally by the petitioner without any cause. The workman’s further case is that before termination of her service, the management did not issue any show cause notice, which was mandatory.

4. To cut a long story short, the following issues were framed by the Government to be decided by the learned Tribunal, which are as follows:-

“(i) Whether the management was justified in effecting work stoppage to the workman since July, 2009?

(ii) Whether the workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages including other fringe benefits.”

5. The petitioner did not participate in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, despite being given time for filing written statement, on the asking of the petitioner. The learned Tribunal thereafter took the evidence of the workman and passed the impugned ex-parteAward dated 24.08.2015 in Reference Case No. 1/2014, by directing reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages.

6. The writ petitioner (management) thereafter submitted Misc. Case No. 1/2016 before the learned Tribunal under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, for vacating the ex-parte Award dated 24.08.2015. Misc. Case No. 1/2016 was dismissed, vide order dated 22.06.2016, on the ground that Order IX Rule 13 CPC was not attracted, keeping in view the fact that a petition dated 30.01.2014 had been filed by the petitioner in Reference Case No. 1/2014, seeking time to file written statement and after that, the petitioner had not appeared on his own volition before the learned Tribunal.

7. The petitioner has thereafter filed the present writ petition, praying for setting aside the ex-parte Award dated 24.08.2015 passed in Reference Case No. 1/2014 and the order dated 22.06.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 1/2016.

8. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner had submitted a letter dated 30.01.2014 in Reference Case No.1/2014, which the learned Tribunal should have accepted as the written statement of the petitioner. He further submits that the management neither terminated the service of the respondent No. 6 nor initiated any domestic proceeding against her. As the respondent No. 6 was absent from service from June, 2009, the petitioner had no other alternative, but to stop making payment of wages on account of no work no pay. He also submits that though the management had repeatedly informed the respondent No. 6 to attend to her duties, but she neither attended to her duties, nor gave reasons for her absence to the management. He submits that due to there being no Presiding Officer, for a certain period of time to preside over the learned Tribunal, the petitioner was expecting that a notice would be issued to it, as and when the Presiding Officer started presiding over the learned Tribunal, without realising that the concerned District Judge was in-charge Presiding Officer of the learned Tribunal, during the absence of the Presiding Officer. He accordingly submits that the ex-parte Award dated 24.08.2015 and the order dated 22.06.2016 passed in Reference Case No. 1/2014 and Misc. Case No. 1/2016 respectively, should be set aside and the matter should be remanded back to the learned Tribunal, to en