Delhi High Court
M/S J.N. Enterprises vs Labour Court & Anr. on 21 December, 2011
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% W.P.(C) 3004/1994
+ Date of Decision: 21st December, 2011
# M/S J.N. ENTERPRISES ....Petitioner
! Through: Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate for
Mr. Anil Grover, Advocate
Versus
$ LABOUR COURT & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J: (ORAL)
This writ petition was filed by the petitioner-management
challenging the order dated 10th July, 1992 passed by the Labour Court
dismissing the petitioner's application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the
Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 7th
February, 1992 whereby the Labour Court had ordered reinstatement
of respondent no. 1-workman in its service after holding the
termination of his services by the petitioner-management to be illegal.
2. The Labour Court had dismissed the application under Order 9
Rule 13 CPC only on the ground that by the time that application
came to be filed it had already become functus officio because of the
award rendered by it having been published and becoming
enforceable. For this conclusion the Labour Court had placed reliance
on a judgment of this Court in "Jagdamba Auto Industry Vs. Kamal
Yadav", 45 (1991) DLT 125 (DB) wherein it had been held that the
Labour Court becomes functus officio only after 30 days of the period
from the date of publication of the award.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited one decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that the Labour Court
or the Industrial Tribunal does not become functus officio after the
publication of the award rendered by it and they have the jurisdiction
to set aside an ex-parte award by entertaining an application under
Order IX Rule 13 CPC. This judgment is reported as "Radhakrishna
Mani Tripathi Vs. L.H. Patel & Anr.", (2009) 2 SCC 81 in which
judgment this conclusion had been arrived by relying upon an earlier
judgment in the case of "Anil Sood Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour
Court II", (2001) 10 SCC 534.
4. In view of these pronouncements of the Apex Court, the
impugned order of the Labour Court in the present case has to be set
aside and the matter deserved to be remanded back to the Labour
Court with the direction to deal with the petitioner's application under
Order IX Rule 13 CPC on merits.
5. Accordingly, the order dated 10th July, 1992 of the Labour
Court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court
for fresh disposal of the petitioner's application under Order 9 Rule 13
CPC after examining the reasons given by the petitioner-management
for its not appearance in the reference proceedings because of which
ex-parte award came to be passed.
6. The matter shall be taken up by the Labour Court on 31st
January, 2012 at 2 p.m. and thereafter, it shall proceed further after
giving notice to the workman concerned as well as to the Union which
was representing his cause.
P.K. BHASIN, J
DECEMBER 21, 2011/pg
