Madhya Pradesh High Court
G.I. Staffing Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Rakesh Verma on 29 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 29 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 30754 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. G.I. STAFFING SERVICES PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SH. VAIBHAV
NAUTICAL S/O SH. R.S. NAUTICAL OFFICE AT 503
TOWER B WORLD TRADE TOWER NOIDA SEC 16
(UTTAR PRADESH)
2. L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. THROUGH
ITS MANAGER SH. MR DASARI PARIPOORNAIAH
S/O SH. DASARI RAMA MOHAN RAO OFFICE AT
LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. 6TH FLOOR
NO. 600 TO 605 PARSHWANATH BUSINESS PARK
SG ROAD PRAHALADNAGAR AHMEDABAD
GUJRAT 380014 (GUJARAT)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ADITYA KHANDEKAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
RAKESH VERMA S/O SHRI HARIPRASAD VERMA 14/1
POOJA SHRINAGAR C.T.O. BAIRAGARH BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI RAJNEESH GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By the present petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated
25.8.2023 passed by the Labour Court, whereby the application moved by the
petitioners under Section 11 for recalling the ex-parte award dated 11.2.2022
passed in favour of respondent by Labour Court was dismissed on the ground
that after passing the award, Labour Court has become functus officio and
therefore, the Labour Court has not having any jurisdiction to recall the award.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue has already
been decided by the Apex Court in the matter of Haryana Suraj Malting
Limited vs. Phool Chand, (2018) 16 SCC 567, wherein the Apex Court has
held that Labour Court has jurisdiction to set aside the ex-parte award and the
Labour Court will not become functus officio, after passing the award. The
relevant portion of the judgment is as under:-
"37. Merely because an award has become enforceable, does not
necessarily mean that it has become binding. For an award to become
binding, it should be passed in compliance with the principles of natural
justice. An award passed denying an opportunity of hearing when there
was a sufficient cause for non- appearance can be challenged on the
ground of it being nullity. An award which is a nullity cannot be and shall
not be a binding award. In case a party is able to show sufficient cause
within a reasonable time for its non-appearance in the Labour
Court/Tribunal when it was set ex parte, the Labour Court/Tribunal is
bound to consider such an application and the application cannot be
rejected on the ground that it was filed after the award had become
enforceable. The Labour Court/Tribunal is not functus officio after the
award has become enforceable as far as setting aside an ex parte award is
concerned. It is within its powers to entertain an application as per the
scheme of the Act and in terms of the rules of natural justice. It needs to
be restated that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a welfare legislation
intended to maintain industrial peace. In that view of the matter, certain
powers to do justice have to be conceded to the Labour Court/ Tribunal,
whether we call it ancillary, incidental or inherent."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated
25.8.2023 be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Labour Court with a
direction to decide the application for recalling on merits.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent supported the order
passed by the Labour Court, however, does not dispute the legal position that
for the purpose of setting aside the ex-parte award, the Labour Court is having
jurisdiction. He further submits that the petitioner has not complied with the
provisions of Section 17(B) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and therefore, no relief can be
granted by this Court to the petitioners.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the
Labour Court has wrongly held that once the award is passed, the Labour
Court become functus officio and the Court is not having jurisdiction to recall
the ex-parte award.
6. In view of the judgment of Apex Court delivered in the matter of
Haryana Suraj (supra), the petition is allowed. The order dated 25.8.2023 is set
aside, subject to compliance of the provision of Section 17(B) of the I.D. Act
by the petitioners from the date of filing the present petition, till the date of
disposal of the petition. The petitioners will make the payment of amount under
Section 17(B) of the Act to the respondent, within a period of one month from
today and the payment of amount will be the condition for restoration of Case
No.5/ID Act/2022 (Misc.) in which the impugned order dated 25.8.2023 was
passed.
7. The Labour Court is directed to decide the application filed under
Section 11 of I.D. Act by the petitioners for recalling the ex-parte award on
merits, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
8. With the aforesaid, present petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
irfan
