JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Kota, assailing ex-parte award dated 12.10.1992 and order dated 19.07.1995 rejecting application to set-aside ex-parte award, passed by the Labour Court, Kota. Reference of an industrial dispute was made to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government by Notification dated 02.11.1989 to the effect whether action of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Kota in removing Shri Mangilal, Smt. Pushpa and Smt. Shanti from service, was legal and justified and, if not, what relief they are entitled to. 2. Learned Labour Court answered the reference in the term that their removal from services was not legally valid and they are all entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity of service. 3. Dr. Mahendra Singh Kachhawa, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that the Labour Court erred in law in holding that termination of the respondent workmen was made in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act'). In fact, they were never retrenched but had abandoned the services. This matter would therefore not fall within the purview of retrenchment. The learned counsel submitted that notice of proceedings before the learned Labour Court was served upon Chowkidar deployed in the office of Deputy Conservator of Forest. The said Chowkidar never put up the notice before the Deputy Conservator of Forest nor otherwise brought the same to his knowledge. In these circumstances, the matter went unattended on behalf of the management. The learned Labour Court on 07.11.1990 ordered ex-parte proceedings against the management and passed ex-parte award on 12.10.1992. Information of that award came to the notice of the Deputy Conservator of Forest for the first time from letter of the Deputy Secretary, Labour Department, Government of Rajasthan, dated 18.10.1993, which was received in his office on 19.10.1993. Officials of the petitioner made enquiry regarding award of the Labour Court and thereafter applied for certified copy of the award, which was received on 01.11.1993 and on the very second day i.e. 02.11.1993, an application was made for setting aside the ex-parte award and allowing the petitioner herein, i.e. the Deputy Conservator of Forest to participate in the proceedings and adduce evidence on its behalf. Learned counsel submitted that even after publication of the award, the learned Labour Court could have entertained application for setting aside the award. Learned counsel submitted that even after publication of the award, the learned Labour Court could have entertained application for setting aside the award. The application, however, has been rejected by a mechanical order passed on 19.04.1995; although, on the merits, holding that the plea of the management that service of notice was not proper, cannot be accepted. It is submitted that during pendency of present writ petition, workman Mangilal expired on 11.03.2001, who has been substituted by his legal representatives. Since no interim order was passed by this court, the respondent workman Mangilal joined the duties on 06.03.1997; another workman Smt. Shanti joined her duties on 06.03.1997 and since then she is working; but Smt. Pushpa Devi has never turned up to attend the office. The learned counsel submitted that the matter ought to be remanded because service of notice was not affected on Deputy Conservator of Forest but notice was actually served on a Chowkidar of his office, which cannot be treated as sufficient service. It is therefore prayed that the award may be set aside and the matter may be remanded. 4. On the other hand, Shri Bhanwar Bagri, learned counsel for workmen/respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that Chowkidar in the office of Deputy Conservator of Forest was authorised to accept notice and when he accepted notice, it cannot be said that service was not complete. The learned Labour Court sent a notice on 17.03.1990, service of which was affected on Shri Chandalal, Chowkidar on 09.04.1990 wherein 11.04.1990 was the date fixed for appearance. When no one appeared on that date, a fresh notice was issued giving 21.08.1990 as the next date. That notice was also served on Shri Chandalal, Chowkidar in the office of management on 09.08.1990; even then no one turned up. In those circumstances, learned Labour Court was fully justified in proceeding ex-parte against the management and passing ex-parte award. The learned counsel submitted that after the award was published, application for setting aside ex-parte award was not maintainable. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not been able to show compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act. Award of the learned Labour Court holding violation of that provision cannot be faulted. The learned counsel submitted that after the award was published, application for setting aside ex-parte award was not maintainable. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not been able to show compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act. Award of the learned Labour Court holding violation of that provision cannot be faulted. The learned counsel on the scope of interference by this Court cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Company Limited and Another AIR 2003 SC 1561 (1) to argue that this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is only to see whether the subordinate court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, muchless of an error of law. He also cited the judgments of this Court in (1) State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Lal & Another S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3869/1993 decided on 03.01.1994 and (2) Assistant Engineer, PWD v. Babulal and Another, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1971/2003, decided on 04.12.2009 , to argue that it was held in those cases that if, despite service of notice, management chose not to contest the claim of the workman, it cannot be permitted to assail findings recorded by the Labour Court. Learned counsel also cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation - 2010 CDR 401 (SC) to argue that this court should not interfere with the award directing reinstatement with 50% back wages and substitute such direction by requiring management to pay lump sum compensation. It was also argued that common writ petition against the award as also against the order refusing to set-aside ex-parte award, would not be maintainable. Learned counsel has further argued that once the award is published, the Labour Court or the industrial tribunal becomes functus officio. It cannot thereafter entertain application for setting aside the ex-parte award. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. 6. First of all, I shall deal with the objection raised by learned counsel for respondents that writ petition simultaneously challenging the award and order rejecting application for setting-aside ex-parte award is not maintainable. This argument noticed only to be rejected. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. 6. First of all, I shall deal with the objection raised by learned counsel for respondents that writ petition simultaneously challenging the award and order rejecting application for setting-aside ex-parte award is not maintainable. This argument noticed only to be rejected. When the dispute is between the same management and the same workmen, there is no reason why multiple number of writ petitions should be required to be filed. This court while entertaining writ petition against the award, can also examine validity of the order rejecting application for setting-aside ex-parte award. Although, it is another matter, whether or not such writ petition is allowed on merits. 7. Let me now examine the challenge to the order by which the application filed by the petitioner for setting-aside the ex-parte award and allowing them to participate in the proceedings, was rejected by the learned Labour Court. If challenge thereto succeeds, then the necessity to examine validity of the award would stand obviated. In other words, if the prayer of the petitioner on the first count is rejected only then would arise the necessity to examine the another prayer with regard to validity of the award. What transpires from the record of the present case is that service of notice issued to the Deputy Conservator of Forest for the date 21.08.1990 was affected on 09.08.1990 upon Chandalal, Chowkidar in his office. It was the stand of the workmen before the learned Labour Court and is also before this Court that said Chowkidar had accepted the notice but no evidence to that effect was led that he was authorised to accept such notice, although at the same time this is not disputed by the management that he was Chowkidar with them. Second time also, notice was again served on the said Chowkidar on 09.08.1990 for the date of 21.08.1990. The management has taken a plea that such notice was never placed before the Deputy Conservator of Forest, on whom it was meant to be served. 8. Second time also, notice was again served on the said Chowkidar on 09.08.1990 for the date of 21.08.1990. The management has taken a plea that such notice was never placed before the Deputy Conservator of Forest, on whom it was meant to be served. 8. According to the provisions of Section 17-A of the ID Act read with Rules 22 and 24 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, if an application for setting-aside ex-parte award is made within 30 days from the date of publication thereof, mere fact of its publication would not affect the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain such application on merits. As per the record in the present case, the award was published on 18.10.1993 and this came to the notice of the Deputy Conservator of Forest from the letter of the Deputy Secretary, Labour Department, received by him on 19.10.1993. Application for setting-aside the ex-parte award was made on 02.11.1993 i.e. within 30 days from the date of publication thereof. Contention that once the award has been published, application for setting-aside the ex-parte award would not be maintainable, cannot be accepted. I am fortified in this view from ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sangham Tape Company v. Hans Raj (2005) 9 SCC 331 . The Supreme Court in Anil Sood v. Presiding Officer, learned Labour Court-II (2001) 10 SCC 534 , held that a party against whom an award is made has to be given an opportunity to defend itself and this is a matter of procedure and not that of power in the sense in which language is adopted in Section 11. The contention raised that once the award is published and even if it is an ex-parte award, the court become functus officio, was rejected holding that when matters are referred to Tribunal or Court the same have to be decided objectively and tribunals have to exercise their discretion in judicious manner without arbitrariness by following rules of natural justice. The contention raised that once the award is published and even if it is an ex-parte award, the court become functus officio, was rejected holding that when matters are referred to Tribunal or Court the same have to be decided objectively and tribunals have to exercise their discretion in judicious manner without arbitrariness by following rules of natural justice. Power to proceed ex-parte is available under Rule 22 of the Central Rules which also includes the power to inquire whether or not there was sufficient cause for the absence of a party at the hearing, and if there is sufficient cause shown, which prevented a party from appearing, then, if the party is visited with an award without a notice, that is a nullity and therefore the Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to proceed and consequently, it must necessarily have power to set aside the ex parte award. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. R.V. Palde (2008) 17 SCC 683 . 9. Adverting now to the merits of the case, whatever material was brought on record before the learned Labour Court and as also before this court, makes it evident that service of notice was affected on Chowkidar of the office of Deputy Conservator of Forest; although it was asserted on behalf of the workmen that this Chowkidar might have been authorised to accept notice but no evidence to that effect was led and no witness was produced to substantiate this fact. This would therefore also imply that notice of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court was not served on the Deputy Conservator of Forest, for whom it was meant. The learned Labour Court while presuming sufficient service did not satisfy itself as to whether no other receipt/dispatch clerk was there to receive the notice in the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest or whether the said Chowkidar had the authority to receive the said notice. This fact assumes significance because the Deputy Conservator of Forest asserted before the learned Labour Court that this notice was never placed before him nor otherwise brought to his notice. This fact assumes significance because the Deputy Conservator of Forest asserted before the learned Labour Court that this notice was never placed before him nor otherwise brought to his notice. The willingness to contest on his part has to be also understood in the light of the fact that when information of the award after publication was received on 19.10.1993, certified copy thereof was immediately applied for and when such copy was received on 01.11.1993, application for setting-aside the ex-parte award was filed on the very next date i.e. 02.11.1993. In such circumstances, management cannot, therefore, be denied the right to participate in proceedings regardless of what they have to contend on merits of the case while contesting claim of the respondents workmen. The judgment in Sadhana Lodh's case (Supra) is not a direct authority on the point. This judgment deals with the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court while considering the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But this court cannot ignore direct judgments of the Supreme Court dealing with the issue whether or not the learned labour court/industrial tribunal can entertain application for setting-aside exparte award which held that such courts can, rather should, entertain such applications if it is found that service of notice was not affected on the management in a satisfactory manner or that if the management was not given reasonable opportunity to defend the matter, it should be given opportunity to defend itself. 10. Although the cited judgments of coordinate benches of this Court in Assistant Engineer, PWD v. Babulal and Another (Supra) and State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Lal and Another (Supra) are relating to challenge made against the ex-parte award but with great respect, those judgments do not throw any light on the issues debated and decided in this case. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 19.07.1995 rejecting the application for setting aside the ex-parte award is set-aside and consequently the ex-parte award dated 12.10.1992 is also set-aside. Observations made in this judgment, however, may not be construed to reflect either way on merits of the case, on which subject the learned Labour Court would, now on remand of this mater, be free to take its own view. 12. Observations made in this judgment, however, may not be construed to reflect either way on merits of the case, on which subject the learned Labour Court would, now on remand of this mater, be free to take its own view. 12. Since this matter arises out of the notification making reference of industrial dispute dated 02.11.1989, the learned Labour Court, on remand, should make an endeavour to complete the proceedings as expeditiously as possible but in any case within one year from the date copy of this judgment is placed before it by either party. 13. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Labour Court, Kota, on 11.10.2010.Petition allowed. *******