Anil Sood vs S.K. Saruaria
1997 Latest Caselaw 28 Del

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

(1) In this petition (CWP No.325iy96) and connected petitions the petitioners seek setting aside of ex parte award made by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court and also for setting aside the order dismissing their application seeking setting aside of the ex parte award. It would suffice to only briefly state the facts of one of the petitions (CWP No.3251/96).

(2) The ex parte award was made on 18 May 1995. It was published on 11 September 1995. An application for setting aside the ex parte award was made on 6 November 1995. It was dismissed on 9th November 1995 in view of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Others, 1980 (suppl.) Scc 420.

(3) The award made by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is required to be published within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt by the appropriate Government as provided in Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act). Subject to the provisions of Section 17A of the Act the award published under Section 17(1) attains finality and cannot be called in question in any Court in any manner whatsoever as provided in Section 17(2) of the Act. Under Section 17A an award(including an arbitration award) becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under Section 17 of the Act. .

(4) It is not disputed that an application for setting aside the ex parte award was made after the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication.

(5) The short question for decision is whether the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is competent to entertain an application for setting aside the ex parte award filed beyond 30 days after the publication of the award.

(6) In Grindlays Bank's case (supra), the Supreme Court while dealing with the contention that the Tribunal becomes functus officio on the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the award and, therefore, has no jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte award and that the Central Government alone could .set it aside, while referring to Sections 20(3) and 17A of the Act, has held that the proceedings with regard to a reference under Section 10 of the Act are not deemed to be concluded until the expiry of 30 days from the publication of the award and till then the Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute referred to it for adjudication and upto that date it has the power to entertain an application in connection with such a dispute and that stage is not reached till the award becomes enforceable under Section 17A. Relying on this decision, this Court in various decisions has held that after expiry of 30 days from date of publication of the award the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court becomes functus officio and has thus no jurisdiction to entertain an application filed beyond expiry of 30 days (see: Jagdamba Auto Industries v. Kamal Yadav , Management of Delhi Development Authority v. Shri Radhey Shyam Tyagi & Anr., 1996(11) L.LJ. 139 and D.D.A. v. Pradeep Kumar, 1996(74) I.F.L.R.2556). We are in respectful agreement with the views expressed in these decisions. Similar views have also been expressed by Punjab & Haryana High Court and Allahabad High Court (See: Warring Coop. Agriculture Services Society Ltd. v. State of Punjab and others, 1987 Lab & I.C. 359(P & H) and U.P.S.R.T.C, Kanpur v. State of U.P.& Ors., 1996(1) Llj 31).

(7) Mr. Raj Birbal and Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, vehemently contend that the ratio of the decision of the case of Grindlays Bank's case(supra) has a later decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Satnam Verma v. Union of India, 1985(1) L.L.J. 79 in fact is that an application seeking setting aside of an ex parte award filed even beyond the period of 30 days of the dale of publication of the enforceability of the award can also be entertained by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. Strong reliance has been placed by learned counsel on observations made in para 14 of the decision in Grindlays Bank's case to the effect that "There is no finality attached to an ex parte award because it is always subject to it being set aside on sufficient cause being shown". The Supreme Court, however, immediately after the aforesaid observations has also observed. "The Tribunal had the power to deal with an application properly made before it for setting aside the ex parte award and pass suitable orders". To our mind-the ratio of the aforesaid decisions is clear that the Industrial Tribunal retains jurisdiction to deal with an application for setting aside an ex parte award only until the expiry of 30 days from the publication of the award. The stage of deemed conclusion of proceedings with regard to a reference under Section 10 of the Act reaches when the award becomes enforceable under Section 17-A of the Act. Further the parties arc presumed to have the knowledge of the award on its publication. Reference may also be made to sub-rule (9) of Rule Iob of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which, inter alia, provides that the Industrial Tribunal may, 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. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Supreme Court the reliance by the petitioners on decision of this Court in the case of Metal Fabricators (India) Ltd. v. B.D.Gupta and others, 1975(2) Lab.l.C. 1707 is of no consequence. This decision was rendered before the Supreme Court decided Grindlays Bank's case(supra).

(8) Before we part, we must place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Shri Ashok Aggarwal and Mr. Mukul Talwar, Advocates whom we requested to assist the Court since none appeared before us for the respondents.

(9) In view of the aforesaid we find no substance in the writ petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.