[2025:RJ-JP:32523] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1089/2001 1. Babulal Baberwal S/o Late Shri Lalchand Baberwal, aged about 49 years, R/o 766, Mahavir Nagar-II Kota. 2. Rajasthan (State) Bank Workers Organisation having its Regional Office at Post Box No.29, Rampura, Kota through its General Secretary Shri V.P. Gupta S/o Shri M.P. Gupta, R/o 5/224, SFF, Mansarovar, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Judge Industrial Tribunal (Central) Kota. 2. Punjab National Bank, having its Regional Office at C-30, Krishna Colony, Bharatpur through its Regional Manager. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amod Kasliwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 19/08/2025 1. Petitioners have assailed legality and validity of order dated 15.11.2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Kota, whereby application for setting aside ex-parte award dated 14.02.1995 has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the year 1992 with the respondent No.2, however, on account of initiation of disciplinary inquiry, he was awarded penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 01.05.1992. Feeling aggrieved the concerned workman raised industrial disputes under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, [2025:RJ-JP:32523] (2 of 4) [CW-1089/2001] 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'), which was ultimately referred to the learned Court below vide reference dated 01.09.1993. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners did not receive any notice issued by the learned Court below with regard to proceedings on reference and due to such bona fide reasons, they could not appear before the Labour Court and in their absence the reference was adjudicated vide award dated 14.02.1995 by passing disputeless award. 4. It was further submitted that copy of award dated 14.02.1995 was received by the petitioners on 04.05.1995. In the meanwhile, it was also published in Gazette on 20.03.1995. Immediately after receiving a copy of award, the petitioners moved an application for recalling the award as well as to set aside the ex-parte award dated 14.02.1995. However, the same has been dismissed by the learned Court below by giving a finding that after publication of the award, the learned Court below became functus officio and cannot re-open the proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments (i) Haryana Suraj Malting Limited Vs. Phool Chand reported in 2018 (16) SCC 567, (ii) Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Industrial Tribunal (Central), Kota & Anr. reported in 1997 WLC (UC) Raj 137, (iii) State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dulhe Singh & Anr. reported in 2000 (84) FLR 208, (iv) Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore & Anr. Vs. Sindhanoor Veeradhadrappa & Anr. reported in 1988 LAB. I.C. 896, (v) K.K. Rattan Vs. Preskling Officer, Labour Court & Ors. reported in 1994 (2) LLJ 378, in order to show, the Hon'ble [2025:RJ-JP:32523] (3 of 4) [CW-1089/2001] Supreme Court as well as this Court has decided the Issue that even after publication of award in Gazette, the Labour Court does not become functus officio and has got power to recall the ex- parte award on showing justified reasons. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the petitioner by stating that there is no provision under the Act of 1947 empowering the Labour Court to recall its proceedings after publication of award, hence, the learned Court below has committed no mistake whatsoever in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and also examined the record. 8. Bare perusal of the order dated 15.11.2000 would reflect that the learned Court below has not suited the petitioner on the ground that the award was published in Gazette and thereafter it cannot be recalled. 9. The aforesaid issue has been set at rest at the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Suraj Malting Limited (supra) and other judgment relied upon by the petitioners. In the above judgment of Haryana Suraj Malting Limited (supra), the Apex Court held as under: "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 [2025:RJ-JP:32523] (4 of 4) [CW-1089/2001] 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." 10. In the light of facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the Principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it just and proper to quash the order dated 15.11.2000 and award dated 14.02.1995 and to remit back the matter to the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Kota for deciding the matter afresh after giving due opportunity to both the sides. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner undertakes to submit the statement of claim within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. Both the parties to the writ petition are directed to remain present before the Labour Court on 27th October, 2025. 11. In the light of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioners stands allowed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/26