M/S Deutsche Motoren Private Ltd vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5948 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Deutsche Motoren Private Ltd vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 10 December, 2025

CWP-16062
    16062-2016
          2016 with                                                          1
CWP-16063
    16063-2016

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

(225)                                         Date of Decision : 10.12.2025


1. CWP-16062
       16062-2016

M/s Deutsche Motoren Pvt. Ltd.                              ...Petitioner

                                           Versus

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court Circle-I, Faridabad and another
                                         other              ...Respondents



2. CWP-16063
       16063-2016

M/s Deutsche Motoren Ltd.                                   ...Petitioner

                                           Versus

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court Circle-I,
                     I, Faridabad and another               ...Respondents



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:    Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate
            for the petitioner(s)
                              (s) in both the cases
                                              cases.

            Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate
            for respondent No.2, in both the cases.

                ****

KULDEEP TIWARI,
        TIWARI J.(ORAL)

1. Both the instant writ petition(s) are amenable to be decided

together, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties

concerned, the same are taken up together for adjudication.

2. Through the instant writ petition petition(s), the petitioner/Management anagement

has sought to challenge to the exparte award dated 04.09.2015 .2015

1 of 5

CWP-16062 16062-2016

CWP-16063 16063-2016

(Annexure nexure P-1), P as well as, the order dated 06.04.2016 (Annexure P-10)

10),

passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal concerned, wherethrough, an

application for setting aside the exparte award was dismissed by the learned

Tribunal concerned, concerned on the ground, that it has become functus officio after the

expiry of 30 days, from the date of publication of the award.

3. At the very outset, learned earned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits

that at this stage, stage he does not wish to join the issue regarding the validity of

the impugned award. However, he submits that the order dated 06.04.2016

(Annexure P-10), P is per se illegal. He submitted that the llearned Tribunal

concerned was well within its power to examine examine, as to whether, the

petitioner/Management Management was prevented from from causing appearance appearance, on the

grounds which are beyond its control. He placed reliance upon the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd.

versus Phool Chand' C 2018 (16) SCC 567.

4. Learned counsel who has caused appearance on behalf of the

respondent No.2/workman, No.2/ has strongly opposed the prayer made by the

learned earned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the entire efforts of the

petitioner is to frustrate the impugned award award, which was passed in favourr of

the workman. Furthermore, a dilatory tactic has bbeen een evolved by the

petitioner/M petitioner/Management, as despite having the knowledge, the

petitioner/M petitioner/Management did not ot cause appearance before the llearned Tribunal

concerned, and after passing p of the award (supra) (supra),, an application for setting it

aside has been filed. He further submits that the workman has been

unnecessarily dragged upto up this Court, and had to spend hefty amounts to

defend him. Finally, he submits that inn case, the instant writ petition is

allowed, it would defeat the basic objective of the ID Act.

2 of 5

CWP-16062 16062-2016

CWP-16063 16063-2016

5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned

counselss for the parties concerned, concerned and has also gone through the impugned

order dated 06.04.2016 (Annexure P-10)

10) as well well.

6. Learned Industrial Tribunal concerned, dismissed the application

seeking setting aside exparte award, merely merely, on the ground, that it has become

functus officio after expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the

award.

d. The relevant is extracted hereinafter:

"5. Moreover, the award was passed on 04 04-09-15 15 and published on 15-10-15.

15. The application was filed on 23-11-15 15 i.e. beyond the 30 days of publication of the award. An award becomes enforceable under Sectio Section n 17 (A) of the Act on expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication. Once award becomes enforceable labour court becomes functus tus officio and the court cannot set aside the award. Reference can be made to M/s Sangam Tape Company V/s Hans Raj 2004 LLR 1098."

7. The above observation is clearly hit by the judgment passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Phool Chand (supra) (supra). The relevant is extracted

hereinafter :-

:

"35. 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 hhearing earing when there was a sufficient cause for non non-appearance 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 appearance in the Labour Court/Tribunal when it was set ex parte, the Labour Court/Tribunal is

3 of 5

CWP-16062 16062-2016

CWP-16063 16063-2016

bound to consider such an application and the application cannot be rejected on the ground that it was filed afer 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 atural 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, whethe whetherr we call it ancillary, incidental or inherent."

8. In view of the settled propositions of law, this Court is of the

considered opinion that order dated 06.04.2016 (Annexure P-10), requires

interference of this Court.. Accordingly, tthe order dated 06.04.2016

(Annexure P-10), P passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal concerned, is

hereby set aside, aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal

concerned, to decide the application afresh.

9. The he reference is pending since the year 2014,, therefore, a

mandamus is passed upon the learned Tribunal concerned, to decide the

application most expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months,

from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10. On 05.07.2018, the petitioner/company company has offered Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/

to the respondent No.2/workman, for settling the dispute, on once ce and for all, and

therefore, the Coordinate Bench B of this Court Court, directed the petitioner/company company

to deposit Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/ with this Court.. Since the matter co could uld not be settled

between the parties concerned, therefore, the petitioner/ petitioner/company,, by moving

4 of 5

CWP-16062 16062-2016

CWP-16063 16063-2016

apt application before the Registrar General of this Court,, can withdraw the

above said amount.

11. Since the respondent No.2/workman workman has to defend himself before

different forums, therefore, the petitioner/Management, is directed to pay an

amount of Rs.35,000/-

Rs.35,000/ to the respondent No.2 No.2/workman, /workman, within a period of

four weeks, from the date of passing of this order order, which shall be deposited eposited

before the learned Tribunal concerned.. The respondent No.2/workman, /workman, by

moving an apt application before the learned Tribunal concerned, can

withdraw the above said amount.

amount

12. Ordered accordingly.

13. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file, as

numbered above.

(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE

December 10, 10 2025 Manpreet

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

5 of 5