TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toration of Appeal application filed by the Respondent on the ground that the instant appeal was listed for hearing on 14-11-2005 and the hearing notice was received by the applicant on 14-11-2005. However, when the matter came up on 14-11-2005, the counsel fell ill and did not reach the Tribunal on this date. The appeal was taken up and an ex parte order was passed. The learned counsel for the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der on an appeal heard and disposed of ex parte can be set aside on sufficient cause for the absence of the respondent being shown does not mean that CEGAT has no power to do so. Rule 41 gives CEGAT wide powers to make such orders or give such directions as might be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or, most importantly, to secure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and restore the appeal. He further argues that the facts dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd., supra, are not the same as in the subject matter. In the case be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut for non-appearance at the time of passing the order. Since the order has been made out on the basis of an appeal filed by the Revenue and not by the applicant, (who is only a Respondent), and that too after giving sufficient opportunities, I do not consider it a fit case to interfere in any manner with the order, already passed, which, in my opinion, would amount to reviewing the same. The appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
