JUDGMENT : Ajay Bhanot, J. 1. Matter is taken up on the revised call. Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner is present. None appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner has assailed the award dated 24.12.2014 (published on 2.4.2016) and also the order dated 27.1.2017 rejecting the application for recall of ex-parte award dated 24.12.2014. 3. The award was passed on 24.12.2016 and was published on 2.4.2014. The learned labour Court dismissed the restoration application by the impugned order dated 27.1.2017 solely on the footing that the same had been filed after 30 days. 4. The validity of a restoration application filed after a period of 30 days was examined in M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. vs. Phool Chand, 2018 (16) SCC 567 . In M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. (supra), it was held that the power to restore a case dismissed for non prosecution lay squarely within the ambit of ancillary powers of the tribunal to do justice: ''34. In case a party is in a position to show sufficient cause for its absence before the Labour Court/Tribunal when it was set ex-parte, the Labour Court/Tribunal, in exercise of its ancillary or incidental powers, is competent to entertain such an application. That power cannot be circumscribed by limitation. What is the sufficient cause and whether its jurisdiction is invoked within a reasonable time should be left to the judicious discretion of the Labour Court/Tribunal. 35. It is a matter of natural justice that any party to the judicial proceedings should get an opportunity of being heard, and if such an opportunity has been denied for want of sufficient reason, the Labour Court/Tribunal which denied such an opportunity, being satisfied of the sufficient cause and within a reasonable time, should be in a position to set right its own procedure. Otherwise, as held in Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, 1980 Supp. SCC 420 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 309, an award which may be a nullity will have to be technically enforced. It is difficult to comprehend such a situation under law. 37. Merely because an award has become enforceable, does not necessarily mean that it has become binding. For an award to become binding, it should be passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice. It is difficult to comprehend such a situation under law. 37. Merely because an award has become enforceable, does not necessarily mean that it has become binding. For an award to become binding, it should be passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice. An award passed denying an opportunity of hearing when there was a sufficient cause for non-appearance can be challenged on the ground of it being nullity. An award which is a nullity cannot be and shall not be a binding award. In case a party is able to show sufficient cause within a reasonable time for its non-appearance in the Labour Court/Tribunal when it was set ex-parte, the Labour Court/Tribunal is bound to consider such an application and the application cannot be rejected on the ground that it was filed after the award had become enforceable. The Labour Court/Tribunal is not functus officio after the award has become enforceable as far as setting aside an ex-parte award is concerned. It is within its powers to entertain an application as per the scheme of the Act and in terms of the rules of natural justice. It needs to be restated that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a welfare legislation intended to maintain industrial peace. In that view of the matter, certain powers to do justice have to be conceded to the Labour Court/Tribunal, whether we call it ancillary, incidental or inherent.'' 5. By declining to entertain the application for restoration of an ex-parte award, the learned labour Court was misdirected in law. The impugned order dated 20.1.2017 is in the teeth of the law laid down in M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. (supra). 6. The application for restoration asserts that the petitioner-employer got knowledge of the ex-parte order on 13.4.2016. It is further stated that no notice was served upon the petitioner-employer prior to the impugned award. The learned Court below while passing the impugned order neglected to consider the fact that the petitioner was not served notice of the proceedings and hence could not prosecute the case. 7. The pleadings in the writ petition regarding the lack of notice are corroborated by the record and not contested. The cause for absence of the petitioner in the proceedings before the learned labour Court is bona fide. These facts have been overlooked by the Court below while rejecting the restoration application. 7. The pleadings in the writ petition regarding the lack of notice are corroborated by the record and not contested. The cause for absence of the petitioner in the proceedings before the learned labour Court is bona fide. These facts have been overlooked by the Court below while rejecting the restoration application. The restoration application is liable to be allowed and is allowed. 8. Admittedly the award is ex-parte to the applicant. The applicant was prevented by good cause from contesting the case on merits. The impugned award was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 9. There is another aspect to the matter. While entering an ex-parte award the labour Court cannot simply accept the pleadings on their face value. The labour Court in such cases has to apply its mind independently to the pleadings and materials in the record and return specific findings thereon. The credibility of the evidences, pleadings and materials have to be tested by the Court below even in an ex-parte award. The labour Court has passed the impugned award solely on the foot that there was no contest on behalf of the petitioner-employer. The labour Court has failed to make independent findings on the materials in the record. The impugned award is bereft of reasons 10. In Devyani Beverages Ltd. vs. Labour Court-II, Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2005 (6) AWC 6249 All, this Court held: ''13. In the present case, the award has been passed merely on the basis of the written statement of the employee. The entire award is bereft of any discussion on the merits of the case. A perusal of the award shows that only the case of the workman has been set out and without analytically examining the material on record and recording reasons for its conclusion, the claim of the employer has been allowed simply on account of the provisions of Rule 12 (9) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957. The said award being totally unsupported by reasons or discussions, cannot be said to be an award on merits of the case Failure to give reasons would amount to denial of justice. The award speaks of the filing of the written statement by the employer but has not dealt on the comparative merit of the claims and counter claims. The said award being totally unsupported by reasons or discussions, cannot be said to be an award on merits of the case Failure to give reasons would amount to denial of justice. The award speaks of the filing of the written statement by the employer but has not dealt on the comparative merit of the claims and counter claims. Jumping to the conclusion that the termination of the workman was illegal after merely setting out the factual aspect of the case and without discussing the merits, would render the award illegal and unsustainable in law. There is no analytical examination of the merits of the claim which shows total non-application of mind.'' 11. The law laid down in Devyani Beverages (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and shall govern its fate. The impugned award 24.12.2014 (published on 2.4.2016) is vitiated by cryptic findings made therein which reflect non application of mind. 12. The impugned award dated 24.12.2014 (published on 2.4.2016) and order dated 27.1.2017 are liable to be set aside and are set aside. 13. In wake of the preceding discussion, the matter is remitted to the learned labour Court. 14. The learned labour Court shall make all endeavours to decide the controversy on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties to the lis, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. All parties are directed to cooperate in the proceedings before the Court below. 16. The writ petition is allowed.