The Labour Court has jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte award till it becomes enforceable. If an application for setting aside the ex parte award is made before the award becomes enforceable, irrespective of whether it has been published or not, the application is required to be decided on its own merits.

G. C. Garg, J.

1. Demand notice dated November 22, 1986, Annexure P-1 was served by respondent No.1-Soma Vati claiming that her services had been illegally terminated, with effect from September 15, 1986 and that she was entitled to be regularised. This gave rise to a dispute between the parties. The dispute between Soma Vati and the Management of Director, Archives Department, Punjab, Chandigarh was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh, under Sec.10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act ).

2. Claim statement, written statement, replication and re-joinder to the replication were filed by the parties before the Labour Court on their respective claims. The following issue was framed by the Labour Court" whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally by the management. If so, to what effect and to what relief she is entitled to, ifany? OPW"

3. Soma Vati appeared as her own witness as AW-1 on February 27, 1990 and produced experience certificate, Annexure A-1, the award of the Labour Court, Annexure-A2 and the application made by her for regularisation of services, Annexure-A3. She claimed that her services were terminated without serving a show cause notice or charge-sheet and that no retrenchment compensation was paid. The case was adjourned to April 5, 1990 for evidence of the management, but as none appeared on its behalf on that date it was ordered to be proceeded ex parte. Ex parte arguments were heard on April 12, 1990 and the case was fixed for orders for April 26, 1990 when award Annexure P-5 was made. It was held that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. Back wages at the rate of 80% were awarded as the workman was working on daily wage basis.

4. On April 26, 1990 itself, an application was made on behalf of the management that due to strike of the ministerial staff, none could appear before the Labour Court on April 5, 1990 when it was proceeded ex parte. It was thus prayed that the matter be reconsidered and the department allowed to defend the case. The prayer obviously was that ex parte order dated April 5, 1990 be set aside and it be permitted to lead evidence. On notice, the application was contested by the workman by contending that the evidence was not produced intentionally and the absence was deliberate. Factum of the staff being on strike on April 5, 1990 was not denied. It was rather stated that the staff above the level of Assistants was on duty during strike period.

5. The Labour Court in these circumstances concluded that there was hardly any good reason for the absence of the management on April 5, 1990 as any officer could appear or intimation could have been sent. The other ground that weighed with the Labour Court in refusing to set aside the ex parte order was that the award had already been given and the same had in the meantime been published in the official gazette dated June 19, 1990. The application was resultantly dismissed by order dated July 23, 1990. Annexure P-7.

6. A reading of order Annexure P-7 clearly brings out that two factors which weighed with the Labour Court in dismissing the application for setting aside the ex parte order and consequently the ex parte award, are that the award had already been published in the Official Gazette dated June 19, 1990 and that the absence of the management on April 5, 1990 was intentional and thus, there was hardly any justification to reconsider the award.

7. It is by now well settled that there is no express provision in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder giving jurisdiction to the Labour Court to set aside the exparte order or award. It is a rule of statutory construction that such a power is necessary to discharge its functions effectively for the purpose of doing justice between the parties. The words shall follow such procedure as the arbitrator or other authority may think fit occurring in Sec.11 (1) of the Act are of wide