2019 INSC 0136 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2784­2785 OF 2009 Bundi Zila Petrol Pump Dealers Association Bundi     ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Sanyojak Bundi Zila Petrol Pump Mazdoor Sangh(B.M.S.)       ….Respondent(s)                   J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. These   appeals   are   directed   against   the   final judgment   and   order   dated   21.11.2005   passed   by the   High   Court   of   Judicature   for   Rajasthan   at Jaipur   Bench,   Jaipur   in   D.B.   Civil   Special   Appeal No.449   of   1999   whereby   the   Division   Bench   of   the High   Court   allowed   the   appeal   filed   by   the respondent   herein   and   the   order   dated   10.04.2007 1 whereby   the   review   petition   filed   by   the   appellant herein was dismissed. 2. A f ew   facts   need   mention   hereinbelow   in   brief to   appreciate   the   controversy   involved   in   these appeals. 3. On 26.07.1989, the State Government made a reference   under   Section   10(1)   of   the   Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal, Kota for   deciding   the   following   disputes   which   read   as under: “ Whether  the   demands   raised   in   the   demand letters   by   the   Secretary,   Zila   Petrol   Pump Mazdoor   Sangh   before   the   Manager, Maheshwari   Automobiles   Corporation, District   Bundi,   are   just   and   valid?    If   yes,   to what reliefs the workmen are entitled to? DEMANDS 1. The   difference   between   the   amount which   has   been   declared   by   the Government   and   the   actual   amount which has been paid by the Management, which   has   not   been   paid   so   far,   be treated as deferred wages and paid to the workmen   in   the   form   of   ex­gratia payment   and   this   difference   should   be more   than   20%   of   the   salaries   being received by the workmen; 2 2. All   workmen   should   be   given   15   days casual leaves in a year. 3. 11   holidays   be   given   every   year   for National   Holidays   and   other   festivals. Three   times   payment   be   paid   to   the workmen   for   work   taken   from   them   in the year 1986 on such holidays; 4. Workmen   should   be   designated/defined accordingly   to   their  nature   of   work,   i.e., skilled,   semi­skilled   and   un­skilled,   so that   they   receive   salary   according   to their category; 5. All   the   workmen   be   given   annual   salary increments; 6. All   the   workmen   be   given   dearness allowance   in   accordance   with   price index; 7. All   workmen   be   paid   10%   of   their   pay towards rent allowance; 8. Free   medicines   be   provided   to   all   the workmen   and   prescribed   medical allowance be given to them; 9. Provident   Fund   Scheme   be   prepared   for the   workmen   and   deductions   be   made accordingly; 10. Education   Fee   be   given   to   workmen   for studies of their children; 11. At   least   two   cotton   uniforms   every   year and  one  woolen  uniform every two years be provided to all the workmen.” 4. By   award   dated   31.07.1995   (Annexure­P­2), the   Industrial   Tribunal,   Kota   answered   the reference   on   merits   in   respondent's   favour.   It   is, however, not in dispute that the Industrial Tribunal 3 decided the reference  ex parte  against the appellant. In Para 4 of the award,  the Tribunal noted that the appellant(respondent   therein)   did   not   appear despite   notice   served   on   them   and   hence   they   are proceeded  ex parte . 5. The   appellant,   on   coming   to   know   of   the passing   of   the   award,   filed   the   writ   petition   in   the High   Court   of   Rajasthan   at   Jaipur   (W.P.   No. 5294/1996.   By   order   dated   10.09.1997,   the   Single Judge   allowed   the   writ   petition   and   set   aside   the award.  6. The   respondent,   therefore,   felt   aggrieved   and filed   writ   appeal   (No.449/1999)   before   the   Division Bench   of   the   High   Court.   By   impugned   order,   the Division Bench allowed the respondent's appeal and set   aside   the   order   of   the   Single   Judge.   The impugned   order   was   passed   in   appellant’s   absence because   none   appeared   for   the   appellant (respondent   in   appeal)   before   the   Division   Bench 4 when   the   appeal   was   heard.   Aggrieved   by   the   said order,   the  appellant   filed  the   review  petition,  which was   dismissed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High Court. 7. Against the orders passed by the High Court in the   writ   appeal   and   the   review   petition,     the appellant   has   filed   the   present   appeals   by   way   of special leave appeal in this Court.    8. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the parties   and   on   perusal   of   the   record   of   the   case including   the   written   submission   filed   on   behalf   of respondent, we are inclined to allow the appeals, set aside the impugned order and also set aside the   ex parte   award   of   the   Industrial   Tribunal   and   remand the   case   to   the   Industrial   Tribunal   for   deciding   the reference   on   merits   in   accordance   with   law   after affording an opportunity to both the parties. 9. The   reasons   for   remand   are   not   far   to   seek. First, it is not in dispute that the appellant did not 5 get   any   opportunity   to   contest   the   reference   before the   Industrial   Tribunal   and   had   to   suffer   adverse award   ex   parte;   Second,   the   cause   shown   for   their absence before the Industrial Tribunal constitutes a sufficient   cause   and   entitles   the   appellant   to   claim an   opportunity   to   contest   the   reference   on   merits; Third,   we   find   that   this   is   not   a   case   where   the appellant   appeared   before   the   Tribunal   and thereafter   stopped   appearing   and   proceeded   ex parte . In other words, since inception, the appellant did   not   get   any   opportunity   to   contest   the   matter because   they   did   not   have   any   knowledge   of   the proceedings; Fourth, every party to a   lis   has a right to   contest   the   case   on   merits,   of   course,   subject   to certain   well   known   exceptions   provided   in   law. However, so far as the appellant's case is concerned no   such   exception   is   noticed,   which   may   disentitle them to contest the reference on merits; and lastly, 6 substantial   justice   demands   that   having   regard   to the   controversy,   which   is   subject   matter   of reference, both the parties to the   lis   are entitled for an opportunity to contest the case on the merits. 10. It   is   for   all   these   reasons   set   out   above,   we allow   the   appeals,   set   aside   the   impugned   order   of the   Division   Bench,   the   order   of   the   Single   Judge and   the   award   of   the   Industrial   Tribunal   and remand   the   case   to   the   Industrial   Tribunal.   The appellant   is   granted   an   opportunity   to   file   their written   statement   in   answer   to   the   statement   filed by   the   respondent.   Parties   are   also   granted   liberty to   amend   their   respective   statements,   file documents,   and   lead   oral   evidence   in   support   of their case. 11. The   Industrial   Tribunal   will   decide   the reference   within   six   months   from   the   date   of     the appearance   of   the   parties   in   accordance   with   law uninfluenced by any observations made by the High 7 Court   in   their   respective   orders  and   in   this   Court’s order. 12. Parties   to   appear   before   the   Industrial Tribunal, Kota on 05.03.2019 and file a copy of this order to enable the Tribunal to decide the matter as directed above.          ………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                     ………..................................J.         [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; February 12, 2019. 8