IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 16470 of 2009 1. THE MANAGEMENT OF PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK REGIONAL OFFICE (SINCE NAMED AND STYLED AS CIRCLE OFFICE), DARBHANGA THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT NEW DELHI 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS PRESIDING OFFICER 3. THE PRESIDING OFFICER THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. BINOD KUMAR PANDIT C/O LATE MAHENDRA KUMAR PANDIT, MODI NAGAR, KUTUBGANJ, MADEA TALAB, MIRJANHAT, BHAGALPUR ----------- 2 11.01.2010 Petitioner is the Management of Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Darbhanga. An industrial dispute reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Patna being Reference Case No 76 (c) of 2008. the petitioner was obviously aware of the said industrial dispute reference as it addressed a communication to the Tribunal (Annexure-1) clearly mentioning that its office had changed and, as such, the Tribunal was requested to intimate the date of filing of written statement on behalf of the Bank though it is undoubted that Bank had its office at Patna itself. It did not entrust the matter to its Patna Office and merely waited. As notices had already been issued, the Tribunal proceeded ex parte against the Bank and an industrial award has been passed. Petitioner then, on coming to know of the award, filed an application for recall on the ground that it was not aware of the dates fixed in the case as it had received no communication but it is submitted that the Tribunal is not passing any order on the ground that once it has given its award, it has become functus 2 officio. In my view, if the award has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice then it inheres in every Tribunal the authority to recall the matter and rehear the matter because that is a procedural infirmity, the correction whereof is inherent in any Tribunal. It does not amount to a substantive review rather it is a procedural review as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd –Vrs- The Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Others, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 606 and, in particular, paragraph-13 thereof. In my view, the Industrial Tribunal is competent to recall the matter and rehear the matter on merits if it is satisfied that there were legitimate reasons for the petitioner not to appear in the case and that it had no notice of the proceedings or the dates fixed therein which, by law, it was required to receive. Therefore, I direct the Industrial Tribunal to consider petitioner’s application for recall of the industrial award as passed ex parte and if it is found that the award has wrongly been passed ex parte, the Industrial Tribunal would recall and rehear the matter in accordance with law. It is expected that the Industrial Tribunal would hear the matter expeditiously after notice to all parties concerned and till such time it does not decided the matter finally in that regard would not insist upon enforcement of the award. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. 3 The learned counsel for the Union of India is present and has no objection to the nature of order that is being passed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)