An ex parte award lacking adherence to natural justice is a nullity and cannot be enforced; the Labour Court must consider recall applications if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Srivastava, J.

Heard Sri Atul Mehra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned Standing counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2.

2. Even in the revised call none appeared on behalf of respondent no. 3 although detailed counter-affidavit has already been preferred on behalf of respondent no. 3 which is available in the records.

3. The present petition has been instituted for challenging the award dated 11.11.2014 passed by respondent no. 2 which was published on dated 27.03.2015 and the same was pasted on the notice board on dated 15.05.2015. While challenging the sanctity, genuineness and correctness of the award which impugned the present petition on several other grounds inter alia specifically on the ground that the award has been passed as an ex parte and there was no discussion of the stand taken up by the petitioner being the sole employer of respondent no. 3.

4. After receiving copy of the ex parte award on dated 20.06.2015, petitioner appointed Sri Y.K Gupta, Senior Consultant (H.R. and Legal) and Sri V.K. Gupta, Labour Law Advisor to take appropriate action and also appear and plead the proceedings before the respondent no. 2. After inspection of the file and obtaining certified copy of the documents from the respondent no. 2 on dated 09.07.2015, petitioner preferred a recall application on dated 14.07.2015 with the categorical statement that the entire proceedings culminated into award dated 11.11.2014 was completely ex parte and as such the same may be recalled in the interest of justice.

5. By way of rebutting the stand taken up by the petitioner, written statement/objection to the recall application was filed by the respondent no. 3 and thereafter petitioner preferred their written arguments.

6. The adjudication made by respondent no. 2 which culminated into order dated 05.06.2017 through which the recall application preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by way of recording the reasonings that the intimation in shape of notices have already been sent to the address which has been mentioned and it was the duty of the petitioner to attend the proceedings by way of deputing any of the employees of the petitioner and as such the petitioner failed to reply the notice/intimation which is a deliberate action carried out by the petitioner and as such the recall preferred by the petitioner is not liable to be accepted.

7. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. v. Phool Chand [2018 (158) FLR 589] passed in Civil Appeal no. 5650 of 2018 decided on 18.05.2018, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for an award to become biding, it should be passed in compliance of the principles of nature justice. An award passed denying an opportunity of hearing when there was a sufficient cause for nonappearance can be challenged on the ground of it being nullity and as such an award which is nullity cannot be and shall not be a binding award. Operative portion of the above-mentioned judgment M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd (supra) is quoted herein-below:

"35. 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 nonappearance in the Labour Court/ Tribunal when it was ex