JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner, a public limited company, carries on the business of growing, manufacturing and selling tea. The second respondent Amar Nath Chatterjee was employed by the petitioner company as an export assistant and was retrenched from petitioner's services with effect from 1st february, 1972. The reason of the termination was that the said second respondent became surplus owing to losses in the petitioner's export and trading business. The second respondent was offered pay in lieu of notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The second respondent disputed the said retrenchment and did not accept the offer of the petitioner notice of pay and compensation. An industrial dispute was raised by the second respondent through the Commercial Employees Union on the issue of the termination of the services of the second respondent. The said dispute was referred to the first Labour Court for adjudication by the government of West Bengal on 29th december, 1973. The First Labour Court by its award dated 19th March, 1977 held that the said reference was incompetent as the Commercial Employees union did not represent the petitioner's workmen and hence could not raise any industrial dispute on their behalf. Thereafter, another reference was made on the 20th September, 1982 for adjudication by the Seventh Industrial Tribunal the issue as to whether the termination of service of the respondent is justified and to what relief, if any, he is entitled. 2. SOMETIME in July, 1983 the second respondent addressed a letter dated 23th july, 1983 to the petitioner enclosing a copy of the award made by the Seventh industrial Tribunal on 27th June, 1983. The said award it is alleged, was passed ex parte without any notice to the petitioner. The award directed reinstatement of the second respondent with 50 percent of his wages calculated from 1st february, 1972 to the date of his joining. On or about 16th December, 1983, the petitioner received a Memorandum dated 13th December, 1983 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner, West Bengal enclosing a copy of, a letter dated 2nd September, 1983 from the second respondent to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, West Bengal and calling for comments on the said letter. On or about 16th December, 1983, the petitioner received a Memorandum dated 13th December, 1983 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner, West Bengal enclosing a copy of, a letter dated 2nd September, 1983 from the second respondent to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, West Bengal and calling for comments on the said letter. By its reply dated 20th December, 1983 the petitioner stated that as the said award had not been proclaimed and as no notice to proclamation or copy of the award had been given to the petitioner, no cognizance could be taken of the award. By a further Memorandum dated 3rd March, 1983, the Assistant Labour Commissioner referred to his earlier communication and called for a reply. The petitioner by its letter dated 8th March, 1984 reiterated his earlier contention. By a Memorandum dated 23rd March, 1984 the Assistant Labour Commissioner asked the petitioner to attend a discussion or conference on 3rd April, 1984 about the non-implementation of the said award. The petitioner's representative attended such conference and reiterated his contentions. It is alleged that the Assistant labour Commissioner without refuting such contentions stated that unless the petitioner implemented the award, steps to enforce the award would be taken. It is alleged that after the respondent illegally threatened on 3rd April, 1984 to enforce the said award the petitioner moved this Court on 15th May, 1984. Rule nisi was issued and interim order was also passed staying the operation of the said Award dated 20th June, 1983 till the disposal of the rule. Mr. Arijit Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that in this case the petitioner did not receive any proper or valid notice as required by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 requiring the petitioner to appear before the Industrial Tribunal. Since no notice was served on the petitioner, the petitioner did not take any 'steps thereafter to ascertain what happened before the Tribunal. It is contended that no duty is cast upon the petitioner in such a case to enquire from the Tribunal. 3. MR. Chowdhury, has relied on a decision in the case of Nanda Dayaram Jat vs. Raja Ram Ramji Jat, reported in air 1964 M. P. 261 where it was held as follows : "the first summons issued to the defendant for appearance was not a proper summons as required by 0. 3. MR. Chowdhury, has relied on a decision in the case of Nanda Dayaram Jat vs. Raja Ram Ramji Jat, reported in air 1964 M. P. 261 where it was held as follows : "the first summons issued to the defendant for appearance was not a proper summons as required by 0. 5 r. l, C.P.C. because the date, mentioned therein happened to be holiday. There is no rule of law or of procedure that if a summons is issued for appearance on a day which happens to be holiday the party summoned should appear on the next following day. There was, therefore, no obligation on his part to appear ion the next day "mr. Chowdhury has contended that although in that case the Court was concerned with the summons under the Civil Procedure Code but the same principles would apply to a notice issued under the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. MR. Chunilal Ganguly, learned Advocate appearing for the second respondent has submitted that it is not in dispute that the notice was received by the petitioner. It may be that the notice was received after the date fixed, for hearing but the petitioner should have thereafter enquired from the Tribunal about the proceeding. The Tribunal did not proceed on the date mentioned in the notice. The proceedings were completed long after the notice was served upon the petitioner. To appreciate the contentions of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, it is necessary to set out the relevant Rules requiring the Tribunal to issue summons for appearance. Rule 20a of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes rules, 1958 provides as, follows : "upon receipt of the reference from the' Government' under Section 10, the Industrial Tribunal Labour court concerned shall issue notice in form D-2 upon the parties to the dispute as mentioned in the order of reference, requiring them to appear before it on a specified date either by themselves or through their authorised representatives for necessary directions". 5. THE notice summons which was issued to the petitionee is in the following terms : "no. 4281-IT Dt. 22.11.82 form-D2 (See Rule 20a)BEFORE THE SEVENTH INDUSTRIAL tribunal west Bengal, New Sectt. Buildings, calcutta. To m/s. Bloomfield Tea Company Limited, 49, Stephen House, 3rd floor, 4, b. B. D. Bag Cal 1. 5. THE notice summons which was issued to the petitionee is in the following terms : "no. 4281-IT Dt. 22.11.82 form-D2 (See Rule 20a)BEFORE THE SEVENTH INDUSTRIAL tribunal west Bengal, New Sectt. Buildings, calcutta. To m/s. Bloomfield Tea Company Limited, 49, Stephen House, 3rd floor, 4, b. B. D. Bag Cal 1. Whereas, an industrial dispute between M/s. Bloomfield Tea Co Ltd. and their workman Sri Amar Nath Chatterjee has been referred to this Industrial tribunal by the Government of West bengal, Labour Department, Order No. 2809-IR dated 20.9.82, for adjudication under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. You are hereby summoned to appear before the Industrial tribunal on 7.12.1982 at 11 a. m. either personally or through an authorised representative when necessary directions for filing statement of cases by the parties concerned may be given. And you are hereby required to take notice, that in default of your appearance as stated above, the matter will be liable to be heard and determined in your absence. Dated 20.11.1982 sd. Illegible 7th Industrial Tribunal note - The summons shall be in duplicate. The duplicate copy is to be signed and returned by (he person served before the date fixed. 6. IT appears from the said summons that the duplicate copy was to be signed and returned by the person served before the date fixed for appearance. If, is also mentioned in the said summons that in default of appearance the matter would be liable to be heard and determined in absence of the concerned party. On or about 14th December, 1982 the petitioner received the said summons in duplicate in Form D-2 in terms of Rule 20a of the said Rules requiring the petitioner to appear before the Seventh Industrial Tribunal on 7th December, 1982. It appears that the summons was signed by the Tribunal on. 20th november, 1982 and was made ready on 22nd November, 1982. If further appears from the post mark on the envelope containing the said summons that the same had been posted only on 10th December, 1982, i. e. three days after the date on which the petitioner was required to appear before the Seventh Industrial tribunal by the said summons. The petitioner, therefore, could not sign the duplicate copy of the summons and return it before the date fixed as required by the said summons. The petitioner, therefore, could not sign the duplicate copy of the summons and return it before the date fixed as required by the said summons. The object of the notice or summons is to give opportunity to the parties to appear before the tribunal so that the matter can be heard and disposed of in presence of the concerned parties. The contention of the petitioner that no summons or notice was served upon the petitioner in accordance with the rule 20a of the said rules must be accepted. The petitioner received the summons 7 days after the date on which this petitioner was required to appear before the Tribunal by the said summons. In this case, the Tribunal ought to have found out before proceeding further as to why the defendant was absent and whether a notice or summons was properly served or not as in default of appearance the matter was liable to be heard and determined in absence of the concerned party. The Tribunal could not have proceeded in the matter unless it was satisfied that the Notice or summons in compliance with rule 20a of the said Rules was properly served upon the petitioner to enable the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal. The summons was sent by registered post with acknowledgment due and the Tribunal could have ascertained from the acknowledgment Card that the petitioner received the said summons 7 days after the date on which the petitioner was required to appear before the Tribunal. The requirement that the duplicate copy of the summons is to be signed and returned by the person served before the date fixed is to ensure that whether the summons was served on the defendant in time. It is the duty of the Tribunal to satisfy itself whether the summons has been served in time before proceeding further in the matter inasmuch, as unless there is a default in appearance of the defendant the Tribunal could not proceed to make an ex parte award. The duty of the Tribunal does not end by issuing the summons in terms of Rule 20a. It must also be served before the date fixed for appearance. A reasonable time should also be allowed to comply with the summons. The issuance of a statutory notice is not a formality. The duty of the Tribunal does not end by issuing the summons in terms of Rule 20a. It must also be served before the date fixed for appearance. A reasonable time should also be allowed to comply with the summons. The issuance of a statutory notice is not a formality. As in the case of a suit, the decree if any passed without service of summons on the defendant would be nullity so also an award passed without serving the summons in accordance with Rule 20a of the said Rules 7. AT the same time the petitioner should not have taken a technical attitude in not taking any steps to ascertain : what happened before the Tribunal only because the summons was served after the date fixed for appearance. It may be that no legal duty was cast upon the petitioner in such a case to enquire from the Tribunal but at least the petitioner should have drawn the attention of the tribunal immediately after the receipt of the summons that the said summons under Rule 20a of the said Rules was posted on 10th December, 1982 that is three days after the date on Which the petitioner was required to appear before the Tribunal and was received on 14th december, 1982. The Tribunal could have taken appropriate steps upon receipt of such intimation from the petitioner and the matter would not have come, to this stage at all. The industrial disputes should be settled with utmost expedition. Both the employer and the workman have duties and responsibilities to see that technicalities So not stand in the way of expeditious disposal of the pending dispute. 8. IT is next contended by Mr. Chouwdhury that the said Award was and is not enforceable as it was passed exparte without serving any notice under Rule 20a of the said Rules. He has submitted that no application could be made by the petitioner, for setting aside or review of the ex parte award passed by the Tribunal under Rule 27, inasmuch as such application has to be made within 15 days from the date of the Award. The Award in this case was passed on 27th June, 1983 whereas the petitioner came to know about such Award only on or after 20th July, 1983. The Award in this case was passed on 27th June, 1983 whereas the petitioner came to know about such Award only on or after 20th July, 1983. It is, therefore contended that the petitioner was prevented from making any application under rule 27 to the Tribunal for setting aside an ex parte Award. Mr. Chowdhury has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Grindlays hank Ltd, v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others, reported in 1981 Lab. I. C. 155 where the Supreme Court observed as follows : "we are inclined to the view that where a party is prevented from appearing at the hearing due to a sufficient, cause, and is faced with an ex parte award it is as if the party is visited with an award without a notice of the proceeding, it is needless to stress that where the Tribunal proceeds to, make an award without notice to a party, the award is nothing but a nullity. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has not only the power but also the duty to set aside the ex parte award and to direct the matter to be heard afresh". Rule 27 of the said Rules provides as follows : "27. Correction of errors and review of an award.- The Labour Court, industrial Tribunal or Arbitrator may - (i) Correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from an accidental slip or omission in any award made by it or him, and (ii) review an award on the ground of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, either of its his own motion or on the application of any of the parties; (iii) for sufficient, cause set aside after notice to the opposite party or parties, as the case may be ex parte award or an award on the footing that the industrial dispute under referen is no longer In existence either on its his own motion or on the application of any of the parties; provided that no correction Shall be made without previous notice to the parties or the opposite party, as the case may be. Provided further that no application for review under clause (iii), shall be entertained on the expiry of the 15th day from the date of the award. " 9. Provided further that no application for review under clause (iii), shall be entertained on the expiry of the 15th day from the date of the award. " 9. THE object of the service of the summons, as indicated earlier, is that the defendant may be informed of the proceeding in time before the date fixed for hearing. Where the defendant is not served with summons, the mere fact that he had knowledge of the proceeding is immaterial. The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to proceed ex arte in default of appearance by the defendant. If the workman appears but the defendant does not appear at the hearing, the question whether the summons was daily served arises directly for determination of the Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot proceed ex parte unless it is proved that the summons was duly served. Non-service of the summons on the defendant in a suit is a sufficient ground for Settling aside an ex parte decree that may be passed in a suit. Similarly in a case where the Tribunal makes an ex parte award without serving proper notice or summons under Rule 20a of the said rules, the ex parte award is liable to be set aside. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, which have not been disputed, it is evident that the petitioner was prevented from appearing at the hearing due to sufficient cause and was faced with an ex parte award. This award is a nullity and cannot be acted upon. 10. RULE 27 of the Rules as referred to above may not strictly apply on the facts of this case. Clause, (iii) of Rule 27 speaks, inter alia of setting aside an ex parte award. However, the second proviso to rule 27 provides that no application for review under clause (iii) of Rule 27 shall be entertained on the expiry of the 15 days from the date of the Award. It appears that the word 'review' in Clause (iii) in fact refers inter alia to setting aside of an ex parte award. Even then an ex parte award can only be set aside on the ground mentioned in Clause (iii) of Rule 27. It appears that the word 'review' in Clause (iii) in fact refers inter alia to setting aside of an ex parte award. Even then an ex parte award can only be set aside on the ground mentioned in Clause (iii) of Rule 27. Even assuming that a case like this where the Tribunal made an ex parte award without serving a summons upon the defendant comes within the purview of clause (iii) of Rule 27, the petitioner could not have invoked the said provisions as the Award was made on 27th June, 1983 whereas the petitioner came to know about such an award on or after 20th July, 1933. A party affected by an ex parte award may not come to know about the award within 15 days from the date of the Award and he Will be without any remedy. In my opinion the provisions of Rule 27 (iii) will have no application in a case where an award is a nullity. An award made without serving the summons as required under Rule 20a would be a nullity. In such a case the affected party should move within a reasonable time from the date of the knowledge of such an award before the Tribunal for setting aside such award. Even if there is no specific rule for entertaining such an application for setting aside an ex parte award which is a nullity, the Tribunal has inherent power to entertain such an application. As observed, by the Supreme Court the tribunal has not only the power but also the duty to set aside the ex parte award and to direct the matter to be heard, afresh. In the result, this application succeeds. The rule is made absolute. The ex parte award dated 22nd June, 1983 is set aside and quashed. 11. LET appropriate writs be issued. The Tribunal is directed to hear afresh the matter as expeditious as possible but preferably within two months from the date of communication of this order to the Tribunal. The Tribunal will serve notice upon the parties before the matter is heard afresh. All parties including the Tribunal will act on a signed copy of the minutes of operative portion of this order. Application allowed.