IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.05.2026 The Executive Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another ….Petitioners Versus Sonu and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Rajesh Bansal Advocate, and Mr. Anuj Mahla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Dharamveer Phour, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

CM-14794-CWP-2025 Application is allowed, subject to just exceptions.

Accordingly, Annexure P-4/1 is taken on record.

Main case

1. The petitioner-Management, through the instant writ petition, as cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has approached this Court against the ex parte award dated 28.07.2016 (Annexure P-1), vide which, the respondent-workman was held entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Further, an order dated 17.08.2017 (Annexure P-4), is also impugned, vide which, an application for setting aside the orders dated 24.09.2015 and 16.11.2015, proceeding the petitioners against ex parte, and also the award, has been dismissed by the learned Industrial Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application (supra), was dismissed solely on the ground that, post 30 days of the publication of the award, learned Industrial Tribunal had become a functus officio. He submits that the said ground is apparently unsustainable, as the learned Tribunal, even after 30 days, can decide the application. In this regard, he places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. Vs. Phool Chand, 2018 (16) SCC 567.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman, while vehemently opposing the claim of the petitioners, submits that officials of the Management had been summoned by the workman as witnesses, who even caused appearance, along with records. However, thereafter, the Management intentionally opted not to appear, whenever the matter was taken up. Thus, it is apparent that the Management is intentionally trying to deprive the workman from the benefits, as granted vide impugned award. So much so, no plausible reason was spelt out in the application to justify non-appearance on behalf of the Management, therefore, the same was rightly dismissed.

4. This Court has heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the rival parties, and has also gone through the record.

5. Ex facie, learned Industrial Tribunal did not adjudicate the application on merits, rather, by referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sangham Tape Company Vs. Hans Raj, 2004 III CLR 776, dismissed the same merely on the ground that it became a functus officio, after expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the award. The learned Tribunal has grossly erred in law, as it does not become a functus officio, as far as the application for setting aside an ex parte award is concerned. In the event, the affected party is able to demonstrate sufficient cause for its non-appearance, the learned Tribunal is well within its jurisdiction to adjudicate the application on merits. In this regard, this Court relies upon the following observations made in Phool Chand (supra):-

“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 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 afer the award had become enforceable T