JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Labour Court dated 23rd September, 1988 whereby the Labour Court had rejected the application of the employers for setting aside the award passed ex parte by the Labour Court.
2. Heard Sri A.B. Saran, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Parmatma Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Y.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2.
3. Respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication by the State Government to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad by means of the notification dated 29th September, 1986 under Section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said case was registered as Adjudication Case No. 400/86. The Labour Court issued notices to the employers fixing 27th November, 1986 as the date in the matter. On 27th November, 1986 there was a general strike of the employees of the Labour Court, as a result whereof neither the petitioners could appear nor the next date in this matter was communicated to the employers. The employers, in these circumstances went back without being informed of the next date in the matter. By means of the ex parte award dated 4th March 1987, the Labour Court, answered the reference in favour of the workmen. The award was forwarded to the employers by registered letter dated 18th July, 1987, which was received by the employers on 25th July, 1987 and within ten days thereto on 28th July, 1987, on application for setting aside the ex parte award was filed by the employers, which was contested by the workmen. The Labour Court by means of the impugned order dated 23rd September, 1988 has rejected the aforesaid application of the employer.
4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Court had rejected the application of the workmen on the ground that the employer should have obtained knowledge of the next date fixed after 27th November, 1986, they were negligent in that regard, were rightly taken.
5. It is submitted that the aforesaid finding of the Labour Court is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The application filed by the employer for setting aside the ex parte award was made immediately on receipt of the knowledge and there was no intention of the employer to delay the proceedings before the Labour Court.
6. On behalf of the workmen it is stated that the application, as filed by the employer, was legally not maintainable, inasmuch as they were obliged to file an application for setting aside the ex parte award within ten (10) days from the date of the award. Since the date of award was 4th March, 1987, the application filed by the employer on 28th July, 1987 was liable to be rejected as not maintainable in view of the provision of Rule 16, read with Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners were negligent in pursuing the case before the Labour Court and the Labour Court has rightly rejected their applications for setting aside the ex parte award inasmuch as the first notice issued to the petitioners in respect of the proceedings itself contained a clause that no information of any subsequent date shall be given to the parties. Thus the petitioners should have obtained knowledge of the next date within reasonable time.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it is apparent that the Labour Court, while passing the order dated 23rd September, 1988 has not rejected the application of the employees on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.
8. In such circumstances, this Court will not held that the application filed by the employers was barred by limitation as contended by the workmen. Even otherwise, it is pointed out that the Rules 16 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as follows:
"The Labour Court, Tribunal or an Arbitrator may set aside the order passed against the party in his absence, if within ten days of such order, the party applies in writing for setting aside such order and shows sufficient cause for his absence. The Labour Court, Tribunal or an Arbitrator may require the party to file an affidavit, stating the cause of absence. As many copies of the application and affidavit, if any, shall be filed by the party concerned as there are persons on the opposite side. Notice of the application shall be given to the opposite parties before setting aside the order."
9. A bare reading of the said rule would establish that an application for setting aside the ex parte award can be made within ten days of such award.
10. The respondents-workmen contends that the words within 'ten days of such order' must necessarily be read to mean ten days from the date of the order. The reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1985 U.P. Local Bodies Education Act 483.
11. The aforesaid judgment is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in the said case, the application for setting aside the ex parte award was not filed within ten days of obtaining knowledge of the date of the ex parte award. This Court had not interpreted Rule 10 in the manner as is being suggested by the learned counsel for the workmen.
12. It is settled law that an application for setting aside the ex parte award/order can be filed within the prescribed period from the date of knowledge of the exparte order. There can be a dispute about the date of knowledge between the parties, however if the date of the knowledge is established by the person concerned, the application cannot be rejected as being barred by limitation on the ground that the date of the ex parte order is prior to the date of knowledge of the ex parte order.
13. Moreover, statutory tribunals/courts of law must be justice oriented and must act in furtherance of justice and not to frustrate the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1984 (3) S.C.C.,46 (Ghanshyam Das and Ors. v. Dominion of India and Ors.) has specifically held that if substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other cause of substantial justice should, not be defeated on technicalities.
14. Reference has also been made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 SUPREME COURT 606 (Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors.) wherein, it has been provided that the Industrial Tribunal does not become functus officio after making the ex parte award provide an application for setting aside an ex parte award is filed within thirty days of publication of the award.
15. In the circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of the workmen with regards to application being barred by limitation as provided under Rule 16 (2) is, accordingly, rejected.
16. After going through the order of the Labour Court dated 23rd September, 1988, I am satisfied that the Labour Court had adopted a hyper technical approach in rejecting the application of the employers for rejecting the application for setting aside the ex parte award. The Statement of the employers that they had knowledge of any subsequent date after 27.11.1988, has not been disputed by the workmen. The Labour Court proceeded on presumption that the employer could have obtained such knowledge of the next date fixed. The Labour Court lost sight of the fact that 27.11.1988 was the first date fixed in dispute. On the said date there were general strike of the employees of the Labour Court and it was therefore, not possible for the employers to obtain knowledge of the next date.
17. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court satisfied that the employer had made out the case for recall of the ex parte order in the interest of justice and the Labour Court was not justified in absence of the order dated 23rd September, 1988.
18. In view of the findings recorded above, the order of the Labour Court dated 23rd September, 1988 as well as the ex parte award dated 4th March, 1987 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court for decision of the dispute in Adjudication Case No. 4 of 1986 afresh at the earliest possible preferably within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.