JUDGMENT : 1. All these petitions are arising out of the impugned award dated 31.7.2008 and impugned order dated 12.3.2010 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as “the Tribunal”) by which the Tribunal has held that the Workmen of the Rajasthan Handpump Workers Union (AITUC) [hereinafter referred as “the Union”] are entitled to get pay scale of Rs. 2950-4475 w.e.f. 1.4.1992. 2. It is worthy to note here that in spite of service of notices and in spite of engaging lawyer and seeking several opportunities, the petitioner/State failed to submit its reply, evidence and finally it failed to appear before the Tribunal, who ultimately passed an ex-parte award dated 31.7.2008. Thereafter the petitioner/State submitted an application for setting aside the ex-parte award on 3.2.2009 and the said application was rejected on 12.3.2010. 3. Feeling aggrieved by both, judgments dated 31.7.2008 and 12.3.2010, the State has submitted petition (CW 13061/2010) for quashing these judgments and the Union and the Workmen have submitted two separate petitions (CW 7736/2017, CW 7146/2014 respectively) for implementation of the award dated 31.7.2008. 4. The facts stated, briefly are that the respondent Union filed a Reference (I.T.R.28/2002) before the Tribunal. Notices were issued and served upon the petitioner/State as per the Tribunal’s order-sheet dated 21.7.2005 but no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner/State, hence ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them. Thereafter State’s counsel Shri Swami put in appearance on 29.5.2006 and sought time to file power and reply and the same was granted to him by the Tribunal on 14.7.2006, 23.8.2006 and 6.10.2006 but neither any power nor reply was submitted and finally the opportunity of filing reply of the State was closed and after recording the evidence of the witness Mr. M.L. Yadav, ex-parte arguments were heard and award was passed on 31.7.2008 and the same was sent to the State Government for its publication. After six months, the petitioner/State submitted an application for setting aside the ex-parte award, which came to be rejected on 12.3.2010. 5. The Tribunal rejected the application filed by the State for setting aside the ex-parte award by holding that the counsel for the State appeared on 29.5.2006 and thereafter on five to six occasions he sought opportunities till 20.1.2007 for filing reply but the same was not submitted, hence the opportunity of the State for filing reply was closed and the matter proceeded ex-parte. It was also observed by the Tribunal that no step was taken by the Officer of the State to get the status of the pending matter before the Tribunal and they did not bother to take corrective measures. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned ex-parte award dated 31.7.2008 and the impugned order dated 12.3.3010, the State has approached this court for setting aside these judgments, while on the contrary the Union and the Workmen have approached this court for implementation of the award dated 31.7.2008. 7. Counsel for the State assailed the impugned award and order by submitting that the State was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the Tribunal, hence the application for setting aside the ex-parte award ought to have been allowed. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. v. Phool Chand (2018) 16 SCC 567 , for the proposition that if a party is in a position to show sufficient cause for its absence before the Tribunal, whether the Tribunal in exercise of its ancillary or incidental powers, is competent to entertain the application for setting aside such ex-parte award. The power cannot be circumscribed by limitations. 8. Per contra, the President of the Union Mr. M.L. Yadav and Workmen Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma and Mr. Bahadur Singh opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the State and submitted that for almost three years the employer/State did not attend the proceedings of Reference Case before the Tribunal and in spite of getting fourteen opportunities, no step was taken for filing reply and adducing evidence. They further submitted that even after rendition of the award, the employer/State did not bother to take corrective measures. They further submitted that the employer has miserably failed to offer any explanation for not attending the proceedings of the Reference Case before the Tribunal for almost three years. They submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the ex-parte award dated 31.7.2008 and the order dated 12.3.2010. Lastly they submitted that the award dated 31.7.2008 is liable to be implemented and the Workmen of the Union are liable to get the benefits arising out of this award, hence appropriate direction be issued to employer/State to execute and implement the award. 9. Lastly they submitted that the award dated 31.7.2008 is liable to be implemented and the Workmen of the Union are liable to get the benefits arising out of this award, hence appropriate direction be issued to employer/State to execute and implement the award. 9. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 10. The fact is not in dispute that the Union of the Workmen raised the dispute for getting benefits of revised pay scale of Rs. 2950-4475 w.e.f. 1.4.1992 and other benefits before the Tribunal in the year 2002 and the counsel for the State put his appearance before the Tribunal on 29.5.2006 and sought time on 14.7.2006, 23.8.2006 and 6.10.2006 for filing power and reply on behalf of the employer/State but he failed to do so, hence the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte and passed the ex-parte award on 31.7.2008 and the application filed by the State for setting aside the said award was rejected on 12.3.2010 by holding that the cause of absence shown by the State was not satisfactory. 11. This fact is also not in dispute that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) has been enacted to take provision for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. 12. As per Section 17(1) of the Act, an award should be published by the appropriate government within thirty days of its receipt and it becomes final and enforceable after its publication under Section 17. 13. Section 38 provides for power to frame rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act including the powers and procedure of the Courts/Tribunals. 14. Rule 10B(9), as introduced in 1984 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the "Central Rules"), reads as follows: “10B(9). In case any party defaults or fails to appear at any stage the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, may proceed with the reference ex-parte and decide the reference application in the absence of the defaulting party: Provided that the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, may on the application of either party filed before the submission of the award revoke the order that the case shall proceed ex-parte, if it is satisfied that the absence of the party was on justifiable grounds.” 15. Rule 22 of the Central Rules also provides that the Court/Tribunal can proceed ex-parte in case any party fails to attend the Court/Tribunal without sufficient cause being shown. 16. Thus, under the statutory scheme, the Labour Court/Tribunal is empowered to follow its own procedure as it thinks fit, meaning thereby, a procedure which is fit and proper for the settlement of the industrial dispute and for maintaining industrial peace. If a party fails to attend the Court/Tribunal without showing sufficient cause, the Court/Tribunal can proceed ex-parte and pass an ex-parte award. The award, ex-parte or otherwise, has to be sent to the appropriate Government as soon as it is made and the appropriate Government has to publish it within thirty days of its receipt. The award thus published becomes enforceable after a period of thirty days of its publication. 17. In case of an ex-parte award, whether the Court/Tribunal can set aside the same after 30 days of its publication, is the question to be considered. 18. Recently the question came before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. v. Phool Chand (supra) that - “whether the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is functus officio after the award has become enforceable and is thus prevented from considering an application for setting aside an ex-parte award” and the above question was answered by the Hon’ble Apex Court 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. 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. 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 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. 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..” 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Haryana Suraj (supra) has held that the Labour Court/Tribunal is not functus officio after the award has become enforceable as far as setting aside of an ex-parte award is concerned. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case, it is clear that merely because an award had become enforceable, it does not mean that it had 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 sufficient cause for non appearance, could be challenged on the ground of its being nullity. An award which is a nullity, cannot be and should not be a binding award. In case the party was able to show sufficient cause within a reasonable time for its non appearance before the Tribunal, when it was set ex-parte, the Tribunal should consider such an application and the application should not be dismissed on the ground that it was filed after the award had become enforceable. 20. In case the party was able to show sufficient cause within a reasonable time for its non appearance before the Tribunal, when it was set ex-parte, the Tribunal should consider such an application and the application should not be dismissed on the ground that it was filed after the award had become enforceable. 20. The Tribunal did not consider these legal aspects of the matter while passing the impugned order and the employer/State has shown the reason that due to fault of the counsel, reply could not be submitted and the evidence was not produced. The ex-parte award was passed on 31.7.2008 and the application was submitted on 3.2.2009 for setting aside the ex-parte award. It was stated in the application that copy of the award was produced in the office on 20.1.2009, thereafter an application was submitted for getting certified copy and the same was provided on 29.1.2009. It was mentioned that the Officer-in-Charge of the case was transferred, hence due to communication gap the absence occurred and the needful could not be done. There is no doubt that there was negligence on the part of petitioner/State in litigating the matter before the Tribunal and looking to the reason mentioned in the application for setting aside the ex-parte award, one opportunity should be granted to them in the interest of justice to follow the principles of natural justice. 21. The petitioner/State cannot be allowed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this case at their leisure. The Act is a piece of beneficial legislation and has been made to protect the interest of a workman. The petitioner/State did not take the pending matter seriously before the Tribunal which was pending since 2006, hence the workmen of the Union are entitled to get a token/provisional amount looking to the fact that they are fighting the legal battle for their rights since last twenty-one years. 22. Perusal of the record indicates that hundreds of Workmen are members of the Union and they are waiting to get the fruits of the award passed by the Tribunal in the year 2008, but the employer/State has failed to contest the mater before the Tribunal for the reasons stated in the forgoing paras. 23. 22. Perusal of the record indicates that hundreds of Workmen are members of the Union and they are waiting to get the fruits of the award passed by the Tribunal in the year 2008, but the employer/State has failed to contest the mater before the Tribunal for the reasons stated in the forgoing paras. 23. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Haryana Suraj (supra) has held that when an application is submitted by the employer for setting aside the ex-parte award, the Tribunal has to balance equities. 24. Following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of M/s. Haryana Suraj (supra) the ex-parte award dated 31.7.2008 and the impugned order dated 12.3.2010 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside following the principles of natural justice and balance of equities in favour of both parties to the litigation. 25. In view of the discussion made herein above and following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Haryana Suraj (supra), these petitions are disposed of as follows:- (i) The award is remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh after affording opportunity to employer/State to file reply and evidence within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order subject to payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to each workman (who are party to this litigation) by way of provisional payment. However, it is made clear that the payment is subject to final outcome of the award and would be adjusted appropriately. The aforesaid direction for payment of provisional amount to each workman is passed looking to twenty-one years of age of litigation of this matter. If the petitioner/State fails to make the above payment to the members/workmen of the Union, the Union shall be at liberty to file execution application for implementation of the impugned award. (ii) The reply and evidence of the State be taken on record only after payment of the above amount to each workman of the Union. (iii) Tribunal is further directed to afford opportunity of hearing to both sides including submission of oral as well as documentary evidence and fresh award be passed on merits strictly in accordance with law. (ii) The reply and evidence of the State be taken on record only after payment of the above amount to each workman of the Union. (iii) Tribunal is further directed to afford opportunity of hearing to both sides including submission of oral as well as documentary evidence and fresh award be passed on merits strictly in accordance with law. (iv) Looking to the twenty-one years age of the litigation, the Tribunal is directed to hear and decide the matter expeditiously as early as possible, not beyond the period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 26. Parties to the litigation are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.4.2023. 27. Stay application and all applications, pending if any, also stand disposed of.