The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Tribunal has the power to set aside an ex-parte Award if there is sufficient cause for non-appearance of a party, and the Labour Court has specific powers akin to those under Order IX of the Civil Procedure Code.

The petitioner is the Management. They have come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the fourth respondent – Industrial Tribunal made in I.D.No.31 of 2006 dated 18.11.2008 and after setting aside the same seeking for a direction to the Industrial Tribunal to admit the petitioners application in M.P.SR.No.286/2009 in I.D.No.31 of 2006 and dispose of the same on merits.

2. When the matter came up on 12.03.2010, this Court directed the petitioner to give notice to the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent before the Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly, notice was given. When the matter came up on 15.03.2010, the learned Additional Government Pleader took notice for the first respondent and Mr.P.Solomon, learned counsel took notice for the fifth respondent. The matter was directed to be posted for orders on 19.03.2010.

3. It is seen from the records that the State Government-the first respondent by its order in G.O.(D)No.738 Labour and Employment (A2) Department dated 30.10.2006 referred the issue of

i) "Whether the demand of the Union that without any discrimination annual increment should be given for all the workers was justified? and

ii) "Whether the action of the Management in describing the persons who were under the direct supervision of the Management as contract workers was fair and proper? If not, the appropriate relief to be given.

4. The said reference was taken on file by the fourth respondent – Industrial Tribunal as I.D.No.31 of 2006. Notice was ordered to the petitioner/Management and the fifth respondent/Trade Union.

5. While the 5th respondent Union filed a claim statement dated 12.02.2007, the Management did not file any counter statement. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 10.11.2008, the Tribunal examined one worker as W.W.1 and 11 documents were marked as Exs.W1 to W11. The Tribunal held that the claim of the workmen was proved and the Award was passed in terms of the claim statement of the workers.

6. The Management on coming to know about the passing of the impugned Award had filed an application under Rule 41 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules r/w Section 11 and prayed for setting aside the ex-parte Award dated 18.11.2008. However, the Tribunal did not entertain the application and returned the application with an endorsement stating that since the Industrial Dispute was disposed of on 18.11.2008, the Tribunal has become functus officio and the application cannot be entertained. Since there was a delay of 170 days in representing the papers, an application to condone the delay was also filed.

7. In the meanwhile, the workmen had sent a representation to the Management stating that they should give effect to the terms of the Award. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner/Management has come forward with the present writ petition.

8. Mr.P.Solomon, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent contended that the Tribunal had become functus officio and it was correct for the Tribunal to have returned the application. It was also contended that the Management had failed in either filing a counter statement or getting on to the case. Therefore, at their instance, the writ petition should not be entertained.

9. It has to be noted that while passing the ex-parte Award, the Tribunal had to kept in mind Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules. For the sake of convenience, the entire rule may be reproduced as under:

48. Ex-parte proceedings.-(1)If, without showing sufficient cause any party to proceedings before a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator fails to attend or to be represented, the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or the Arbitrator may proceed as if the party had duly attended or had been represented.

(2) The Board, Court, Labour Court, or Tribunal or an Arbitrator may, for sufficient cause, set aside, after notice to the opposite party, the ex-parte decision either wholly or in pa