9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd for hearing on 31st August, 1987. When the appeal reached hearing, the appellant (before us) was not represented. CEGAT heard the departmental representative in support of the appeal and decided it ex parte against the appellant on merits. At about 11.30 A.M. on the same day CEGAT was told that the counsel for the appellant had been held up and would soon reach CEGAT. The informant was told that the appeal had already been heard and disposed of. The Bench having risen, the counsel for the appellant met the Vice President of CEGAT in his chambers and, explaining why he had been held up, requested that the ex parte order on the appeal be recalled and the appeal be heard on merits. The counsel was told, very rightly, to put his request in w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n record. That in fact the Tribunal did. The decision taken by the Tribunal in the absence of the respondent is not an ex parte decision or decree as understood under the Code of Civil Procedure or in a Civil Court and if it is a decision on merits, we fail to see how we can review or set aside the same. Recalling the order passed on merits would in fact amount to setting aside or reviewing an order decided on merits. In doing so, the Tribunal would be exercising a power which is not vested in it by law. We do not think that in such a situation Rule 41 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 could be pressed into aid by the appellants in support of their request for recalling the order." 2.This is the judgment and order of CEGAT under challenge. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld prevent the appeal, if successful, from being rendered nugatory. 4.In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Ors., 1981 (2) SCR 341, the same principles were applied in relation to the Industrial 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 part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unable to appear before it for no fault of his own, the ends of justice would clearly require that the ex parte order against him should be set aside. Not to do so on the ground of lack of power would be manifest 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. 7.It is for CEGAT to consider in every such case whether the respondent who applies for recall of the ex pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
