M. P. CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is mis-conceived. Prayer is to quash the orders made by the presiding Officer, II Additional Labour court, Bangalore in Mis. Case No. 12/86. The order is dated 18th April, 1987. By the said order, the afore-mentioned Labour court allowed the application for re-calling the award made by it on 11-10-1982 ex-parte the workmen. While allowing that application, which apparently was made under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil procedure, the Court has observed that an application for condonation of delay also was filed along with the application for restoration and accepting the reasons furnished for the absence of workmen, it has re-called the award and the ex-parte award is set aside. Mr. Mukund Menon appearing for the petitioner submitted that once the award was published in the gazette in terms of Section 17-A of the Industrial disputes Act, it became enforceable thirty days after its publication and therefore, the labour Court has become functus officio to re-call the award. Section 17-A speaks of enforceability of the award and the exceptions thereto. When a workman's reference is rejected by ex parte order, no enforceable right accrues in favour of management to press into service provisions of Section 17-A. Therefore, reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Grindlays Bank v Central government Industrial Tribunal ( AIR 1981 sc 606 ) is not of any assistance. On the other hand, it supports the view that Civil procedure Code, particularly Order 9 Rule 13 stands attracted by virtue of Industrial disputes (Central) Rules 32 and 34. Observations made in paras 6 and 10 of the afore-mentioned decision in Grindlays bank's case are worth re-producing here :"where a party is prevented from appearing at the hearing due to a sufficient cause, and is faced with an exparte award, it is as if the party is visited with an award without a notice of the proceedings. An award without notice to a party 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. An award without notice to a party 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. " ( 2 ) THEREFORE, if the Workman was prevented from sufficient cause to appear before the labour Court, then it is an award resulting without notice to him, as observed by the supreme Court. In such cases, if the Court leans in favour of the workman, having regard to the object of the Industrial disputes Act and its adjudication before the tribunal is proved or not proved, this Court must lean in favour of the workman and hold that the Labour Court had not become functus officio on the mere fact that the award was published in the gazette and 30 days having lapsed. Petition is, therefore, rejected. --- *** --- .