JUDGMENT : 1. The matter was today listed for vacating the interim order passed by this Court on 21.09.2022 and also conditions of application for compliance of Section 17(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition assailing the award dated 07.07.2022 passed by Labour Court No. 1, Raipur, District Raipur in Case No. 77/I.D. Act/2018/Reference {Satyendra Singh Rajput v. S.B. Multimedia Private Limited} by which learned Labour Court has passed the ex-parte award against the petitioner directing reinstatement of respondent No. 1 – Satyendra Singh Rajput with full back-wages. The award was declared on 10.8.2022 after getting acknowledgment from Dy. Labour Commissioner, Raipur. 4. Brief facts reflected from record are that the services of respondent No. 1 who was working with the petitioner as video editor since 04.08.2008 were terminated on 6.9.2017, therefore, he has raised industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur which was ended in failure, therefore, the appropriate government has referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication on the terms of reference dated 04.07.2018 whether the termination of service of the petitioner is legal and justify. 5. The respondent No. 1 has filed the statement of claim mainly contending that he was employed with the petitioner on the post of video editor on 04.08.2008 and has worked for more than 10 years and he was regular employee and also got promotion to the post of Associate Producer. The petitioner has terminated his services on 06.09.2017 without rhyme and reason, without any notice or conducting any departmental enquiry and would pray for reinstatement without back wages. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention of this Court towards the ordersheet of the case and would submit that the learned Labour Court issued notice to the petitioner. In pursuance of notice, the petitioner appeared on 15.10.2019, 10.12.2019, 21.10.2020 & 07.03.2020. On 07.03.2020 the said date, the presiding officer was notified to exercise power of presiding officer of Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1977. The matter was listed on 23.04.2020 thereafter, Covid19 pandemic was spread over the Nation, as such, all the proceedings pending before the Labour Court, trial Court, High Court and even before Hon'ble Supreme Court were effectively suspended. The matter was listed on 23.04.2020 thereafter, Covid19 pandemic was spread over the Nation, as such, all the proceedings pending before the Labour Court, trial Court, High Court and even before Hon'ble Supreme Court were effectively suspended. Thereafter, the matter was taken-up for hearing on 19.11.2020 and the matter was adjourned to 15.02.2021. On all the occasions of hearing, the petitioner did not make his presence before the Labour Court, consequently, on 17.03.2021, the Labour Court proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and fixed the case on 12.04.2021. The proceeding before the Labour 3 Court was again suspended on account of covid pandemic which resume on 07.08.2021 as such, the case was adjourned to 06.09.2021, 18.10.2021, 25.11.2021, 06.02.2022, 24.03.2022, 26.04.2022, 13.06.2022 and thereafter matter was listed on 06.07.2022. On the said date, the respondent No. 1 has examined himself and closed his case. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 07.07.2022. By referring to the ordersheet, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no material on record to demonstrate that after starting of proceeding which was kept in abeyance on account of covid pandemic, no notice of hearing was issued to the petitioner, therefore, it is incumbent upon the part of the Labour Court to issue notice to the parties. He would further submit that due to covid pandemic and in absence of any notice, the petitioner could not participate in the proceedings, as such, would pray for setting aside the exparte award dated 07.07.2022. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the ex-parte award was passed against them directing reinstatement of respondent No. 1 with full backwages then only, they came to know that an exparte award was passed, the petitioner immediately applied for certified copy of the record and filed the instant writ petition challenging the said ex parte order. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner has not been given notice, therefore, they could not participate in the proceeding before the Labour Court, therefore, the exparte award is bad in law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner has not been given notice, therefore, they could not participate in the proceeding before the Labour Court, therefore, the exparte award is bad in law. He would further submit that as per the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Suraj Malting Limited v. Phool Chand, (2018) 16 SCC 567 the Labour Court cannot become function officio and if no notice of hearing is given to the employer, the Labour Court can very well set aside exparte award. He would further submit that under the I.D. Act, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable and though there is remedy of filing of application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside exparte award, the writ petition without exhausting the remedy of filing application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is maintainable. To substiate the submission, he would refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 2022 SCC Online SC 1158 (G.N.R. Babu alias S.N. Babu Vs. Dr. B.C. Muthappa & others). 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/workman would submit that though the petitioner was well aware about the proceeding pending before the Labour Court, but he had deliberately chosen not to represent his case before the Labour Court, which is evident from the order sheets that on first three occasions i.e. on 15.10.2019, 10.12.2019 & 21.01.2020, the petitioner had appeared through his counsel and, thereafter, he had chosen not to appear in the proceedings before the Labour Court, which shows his negligence and delay tactics was adopted by them and, therefore, contention raised by the petitioner that “as there was no notice issued to the petitioner, ex-parte proceeding has been initiated against him, cannot be accepted and, therefore, the writ petition, being devoid of substance, is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record including order impugned. 11. It is not in dispute that petitioner has appeared through his counsel before the Labour Court on three occasions and, thereafter, due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, the petitioner could not appear before the Labour Court nor his counsel has informed the petitioner about the date of hearing. 11. It is not in dispute that petitioner has appeared through his counsel before the Labour Court on three occasions and, thereafter, due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, the petitioner could not appear before the Labour Court nor his counsel has informed the petitioner about the date of hearing. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW (C) NO. 3 of 2020 in RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION ORDER has considered panic situation faced by the litigants on account of covid-19 pandemic and extended the limitation for filing of the cases by observing difficulties faced by the litigants and observed as under:- “Due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic in March, 2020, this Court took Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central and/or State). On 23.03.2020, this Court directed extension of the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders.” 12. In such situation, after normalization of covid situation, the Labour Court should have issued notice to the petitioner and respondent No. 1, but record would show that the respondent No. 1/employee was regularly appearing before the Labour Court whereas no notice for hearing was issued. Thus, it is evident that petitioner was not aware about the date of hearing of the case. The M.P./C.G. Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 (for short “the Rules, 1957”) also provides acknowledgement and publication of report and awards. Rule 25(a) of the Rules, 1957 as under:- “25A. Acknowledgement and publication of report and awards. - (1) The date of receipt of every report of a Board or Court or every arbitration award of a Labour Court or Tribunal shall be acknowledged by the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer). Acknowledgement and publication of report and awards. - (1) The date of receipt of every report of a Board or Court or every arbitration award of a Labour Court or Tribunal shall be acknowledged by the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer). (2) Within thirty days of the date of receipt of the report or award by the State Government or an authorised officer, the Board, Labour Court or Tribunal shall publish the report or award, as the case may be, by pronouncing the same in open Court and also by exhibiting it on a notice board or table at its office, specified for the purpose : Provided that the Board, Labour Court or Tribunal shall send prior intimation in writing to all the parties concerned in the disputes and to the State Government or an authorised officer, as the case may be, about the date of pronouncement of the report or award concerned. (3) The State Government or an authorised officer, as the case may be, where it or he considers it necessary so to do may also arrange to notify the report or award in the Official Gazette.]” 13. From bare perusal of proviso of Rule 2 of Rule 25 (A) of the 6 Rules, 1957, it is quite vivid that the Board, Labour Court or Tribunal shall send prior intimation in writing to all the parties concerned in the dispute and to the State Government or an authorized officer as the case may be about the date of pronouncement of the report or award concerned. But, in the present case, there is no whisper in the award or in the proceeding of the Labour Court which has been filed by the petitioner that after receipt of the award from the State Government, the Labour Court has issued any notice to the petitioner or respondent informing the date of pronouncement of the award, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has any notice at the time of declaration of the award also. Thus, the proceedings are conducted by the Labour Court against the prescribed procedure, as such, the exparte award is bad in law. Thus, the proceedings are conducted by the Labour Court against the prescribed procedure, as such, the exparte award is bad in law. The procedure adopted by the Labour Court is also against the well settled position of law that if any act provides any particular things to be done in a particular manner, the same should be done in that particular manner only. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Opto Circuit India Limited Vs. Axix Bank & others, (2021) 6 SCC 707 , has held at paragraph 14 as under:- “14. This Court has time and again emphasised that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner. Among others, in a matter relating to the presentation of an Election Petition, as per the procedure prescribed under the Patna High Court Rules, this Court had an occasion to consider the Rules to find out as to what would be a valid presentation of an Election Petition in the case of Chandra Kishor Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 266 and in the course of consideration observed as hereunder: “17......It is a well settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner”. ” 14. Thus, it is quite vivid that the Labour Court even after restoration of normal working condition after covid-19 pandemic, has not issued any notice of hearing to the petitioner nor even at the time of declaration of award, thus, it is quite vivid that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to participate in the proceeding, therefore, the award deserves to be set aside in view of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Haryana Suraj Malting Limited (Supra) wherein it has been held at paragraph 32 to 36 as under:- 32. 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. 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. 33. 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, an award which may be a nullity will have to be technically enforced. It is difficult to comprehend such a situation under law. 34. In this context, it is also necessary to refer to Section 29, the penal sanction which includes imprisonment for breach of award. “29. Penalty for breach of settlement or award.- Any person who commits a breach of any term of any settlement or award, which is binding on him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both, and where the breach is a continuing one, with a further fine which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day during which the breach continues after the conviction for the first and the Court trying the offence, if it fines the offender, may direct that the whole or any part of the fine realised from him shall be paid, by way of compensation, to any person who, in its opinion, has been injured by such breach.” 35. 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 8 the ground of it being nullity. An award which is a nullity cannot be and shall not be a binding award. 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 8 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. 36. We may also add that when an application for setting aside an ex parte award is made at the instance of the management, the Labour Court/Tribunal has to balance equities. The appeals are hence disposed of as follows. The awards are remitted to the Labour Court for consideration as to whether there was sufficient cause for non- appearance of the management. Since the litigation has been pending for a long time, we direct the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in each case to the workmen by way of provisional payment. However, we make it clear that the payment is subject to the final outcome of the awards and will be adjusted appropriately.” We record our deep appreciation for the gracious assistance rendered by Mr. Shekhar Naphade. 15. In view of the above discussions and the aforesaid legal position, the impugned award dated 07.07.2022 deserves to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. Shekhar Naphade. 15. In view of the above discussions and the aforesaid legal position, the impugned award dated 07.07.2022 deserves to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Labour Court to consider and decide the matter afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of first appearance of the parties before the Labour Court. 16. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 8th May, 2023. However, it is directed that till the matter is adjudicated finally by the Labour Court, the petitioner is directed to pay last wages drawn by the workman per month. The payment is subject to final outcome of the award and will be adjusted appropriately in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Suraj Malting Limited (Supra). The petitioner is also directed to pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent No. 1/workman as litigation expenses. 17. The writ petition is allowed in part.