JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. Matter is taken up on the revised call. Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner is present. None appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner has assailed the award dated 24.12.2014 (published on 2.4.2016) and also the order dated 27.1.2017 rejecting the application for recall of ex-parte award dated 24.12.2014.

3. The award was passed on 24.12.2016 and was published on 2.4.2014. The learned labour Court dismissed the restoration application by the impugned order dated 27.1.2017 solely on the footing that the same had been filed after 30 days.

4. The validity of a restoration application filed after a period of 30 days was examined in M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. vs. Phool Chand, 2018 (16) SCC 567. In M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. (supra), it was held that the power to restore a case dismissed for non prosecution lay squarely within the ambit of ancillary powers of the tribunal to do justice:

''34. In case a party is in a position to show sufficient cause for its absence before the Labour Court/Tribunal when it was set ex-parte, the Labour Court/Tribunal, in exercise of its ancillary or incidental powers, is competent to entertain such an application. That power cannot be circumscribed by limitation. What is the sufficient cause and whether its jurisdiction is invoked within a reasonable time should be left to the judicious discretion of the Labour Court/Tribunal.

35. It is a matter of natural justice that any party to the judicial proceedings should get an opportunity of being heard, and if such an opportunity has been denied for want of sufficient reason, the Labour Court/Tribunal which denied such an opportunity, being satisfied of the sufficient cause and within a reasonable time, should be in a position to set right its own procedure. Otherwise, as held in Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, 1980 Supp. SCC 420 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 309, an award which may be a nullity will have to be technically enforced. It is difficult to comprehend such a situation under law.

37. Merely because an award has become enforceable, does not necessarily mean that it has become binding. For an award to become binding, it should be passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice. An award passed denying an opportunity of hearing when there was a sufficient cause for non-appearance can be challenged on the ground of it being nullity. An award which is a nullity cannot be and shall not be a binding award. In case a party is able to show sufficient cause within a reasonable time for its non-appearance in the Labour Court/Tribunal when it was set ex-parte, the Labour Court/Tribunal is bound to consider such an application and the application cannot be rejected on the ground that it was filed after the award had become enforceable. The Labour Court/Tribunal is not functus officio after the award has become enforceable as far as setting aside an ex-parte award is concerned. It is within its powers to entertain an application as per the scheme of the Act and in terms of the rules of natural justice. It needs to be restated that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a welfare legislation intended to maintain industrial peace. In that view of the matter, certain powers to do justice have to be conceded to the Labour Court/Tribunal, whether we call it ancillary, incidental or inherent.''

5. By declining to entertain the application for restoration of an ex-parte award, the learned labour Court was misdirected in law. The impugned order dated 20.1.2017 is in the teeth of the law laid down in M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. (supra).

6. The application for restoration asserts that the petitioner-employer got knowledge of the ex-parte order on 13.4.2016. It is further stated that no notice was served upon the petitioner-employer prior to the impugned award. The learned Court below while passing the impugned order neglected to consider the fact that the petitioner was not ser