review of ex parte judgement
advocate satya
(Querist) 23 February 2009
This query is : Resolved
Dear friends
one case has been decided in favour of the labour as the advocate for the management left the company when the case came to the stage of workmans evidence, the advocate did not informed the company about the next date so no one went in the proceeding further, can a review for setting aside the ex parte order can be filed, and any relevant citation is there for the case?
please guide me with your knowledge as it is very urgent, thanking all of you
ARVIND JAIN
(Expert) 23 February 2009
MOVE AN APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE EX PARTE ORDER.
advocate satya
(Querist) 23 February 2009
sir
is there any limitations. and do any citation is there in relevance?
Srinivas.B.S.S.T
(Expert) 23 February 2009
30 days from the date of pronouncement of judgment and for delay you can file a petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
B.B.R.Goud.
(Expert) 23 February 2009
Mr Satya,
you need to respond immediately and move the application to set aside the Ex parte order / judgement / decree, within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of judgement, even if delayed, you can file a petition u/s 5 of Limitation Act with reasonable explanations.
A. A. JOSE
(Expert) 24 February 2009
I endorse the view of Mr.Srinivas.
H. S. Thukral
(Expert) 24 February 2009
Since the query deals with a labour matter I presume that the proceedings are before a labour court. After a judgement /Award is passed by the industrial court, it does not become functus officio and it looses its juridiction only after thrity days of publication of Award i.e. when the Award becomes enforceable. Till such time the Industrial Court has juridiction to entertain an application to set aside an ex-parte order/award.
I may draw attention to Rule 22 of Industrial Disputes (central) Rules
The language of Rule 22 unequivocally makes the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to render an ex parte award, conditional upon the fulfillment of its requirements. If there is no sufficient cause for the absence of a party, the Tribunal undoubtedly has jurisdiction to proceed ex parte. But if there was sufficient cause shown which prevented a party from appearing, then under the terms of Rule 22, the Tribunal will have had no jurisdiction to proceed and consequently, it must necessarily have power to set aside the ex parte award. In other words, there is power to proceed ex parte, but this power is subject to the fulfillment of the condition laid down in Rule 22. The power to proceed ex parte under Rule 22 carries with it the power to enquire whether or not there was sufficient cause for the absence of a party at the hearing.
I suggest you to read Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank Case 1981(1) LLJ 327
