9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder, though notice for hearing had been issued to both the respondents, when this matter was called, none appeared on their behalf. One of the respondent M/s. Mithila Malleables (P) Limited filed a ROM No. E/ROM/47/2010 in respect of this order requesting for recall of the Order dated 17-3-2010 so far as it related to them and rehearing of the matter, on the ground that though they had appointed Shri G.S. Bhanga, Advocate, as their Counsel, only on receipt of the order, they came to know that he did not appear at the time of hearing. Subsequently, the respondent have filed an application for restoration No. E/ROA/142/2011 praying that their earlier ROM application dated 17-3-2010 may be treated as application for recall of the order and re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Meerut v. Continental Cement Co. reported in 2010 (261) E.L.T. 532 (Tri. - Del.) = 2011 (23) S.T.R. 94 (Tri.-Del.) and Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. C.C.E., Delhi-IV reported in 2011 (266) E.L.T. 70 (Tri.-Del.), that in the case of C.C.E., Meerut v. Continental Cement Co. (supra), the Tribunal has held that when the appellant sought adjournment several times without assigning proper justification, the appeal had been rightly decided ex parte and the adjournment cannot be sought indefinitely. She, therefore, pleaded that this is not the case for recall of the order. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 4. This matter had been heard on 17-3-2010 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trial Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was held that where a party was prevented from appearing at a hearing due to sufficient cause and was faced with an ex parte award, it was as if the party was visited with an award without notice of the proceedings. Where an Industrial Tribunal proceeded to make an award without notice to a party, the award was nothing but a nullity. In such circumstances, the Industrial Tribunal had not only the power but also the duty to set aside the ex parte award and to direct the matter to be heard afresh. The rule in question [Rule 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957] provided that without sufficient cause being shown, if any party to proceedings before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nifest injustice. Quite apart from the inherent power that every tribunal and court constituted to do justice has in this respect, CEGAT is clothed with express power under Rule 41 to make such order as is necessary to secure the ends of justice. CEGAT has, therefore, the power to set aside an order passed ex parte against the respondent before it if it is found that the respondent had, for sufficient cause, been unable to appear." 6. Since, in this case, the Counsel representing the respondent at that time did not appear for hearing as a result of which the matter was decided ex parte and since the respondent were not aware of non-appearance of their Counsel, I am of the view that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
