AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Kulasekaran, J.—This writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records from the first
respondent Labour Court relating to its order dated 21.10.2002 in I.A. No. 56 of 2001 in I.D. No. 146 of 1994 on the file of first respondent,
quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to implement the award dated 16.06.2000 in I.D. No. 146 of 1994 by granting all
benefits due to deceased Mookiah, to the legal heirs i.e. the petitioners, on the date of death of Mookiah on 14.2.2001 together with interest at
12% p.a. till the date of actual payment.
The writ petition falls on narrow scope. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the workman Mookiah, who was dismissed from service on
31.08.1987, which was challenged by him by filing I.D. No. 146 of 1994 before the first respondent/labour Court, Tirunelveli. An ex parte award
was passed on 16.06.2000 and the same was published in the Government gazette on 01.08.2000. It is needless to mention that the said award
has been coming into force after the expiry of 30 days i.e. from 01.09.2000. The second respondent/Electricity Board has filed I.A. No. 56 of
2001 on 24.10.2000 to condone the delay of 117 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte award and the same was allowed. Hence, the
present writ petition.
Mr. S. Vaidyanathan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that once an award was published and a time of 30 days also
lapsed, the award became enforceable u/s 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. While so, it is not open to the first respondent/labour Court to
entertain any application either to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside the ex parte award or to set aside the ex parte award since
it became functus officio. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sangham Tape
Company Vs. Hans Raj, .
Ms. V. Yamuna Devi, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent Electricity Board submitted that the reasons assigned by the
second respondent for condoning the delay were duly considered by the labour Court, in the light of the decision mentioned in its order and it
rightly allowed the same. It is further submitted by the counsel that the petitioner is in no way affected since I.A. No. 56 of 2001 is relating to
condoning the delay, which would not amount to modification of the award until another I.A. is filed and an order is passed thereon and prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
I have carefully considered the arguments made by both sides and also perused the materials available on record.
It is not in dispute that the ex parte award was passed on 16.06.2000; the same was published on 01.08.2000; from 01.09.2000 onwards that
award has been coming into force in view of Section 17-A of the I.D. Act; the second respondent has filed I.A. No. 56 of 2001 on 24.10.2000
seeking for condoning the delay of 117 days in filing the application to set aside the award; and the same was allowed by the labour Court.
Assuming that the said I.A. is only to condone the delay, even that cannot be entertained by the labour Court, because the award came into force
as per Section 17-A of the I.D. Act. The judgment relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Sangham Tape Company Vs.
Hans Raj, , is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein their Lordships have held in paragraphs 7 and 8 as
follows:
This Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. 1980 Supp. SCC 420 held that the Tribunal does not
become functus officio provided an application for setting aside the award is filed within thirty days of publication of award having regard to the
provisions contained in Section 11 of the Act and Rules 22 and 24 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 stating:
The contention that the Tribunal had become functus officio and, therefore, had no jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte award and that the Central
Government alone could set it aside, does not commend to us. Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act provides that the proceedings before the
Tribunal would be deemed to continue till the date on which the award becomes enforceable u/s 17-A. u/s 17-A of the Act, an award becomes
enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication u/s 17. The proceedings with regard to a reference u/s 10 of the Act are,
therefore, not deemed to be concluded until the expiry of 30 days from the publication of the award. Till then the Tribunal retains jurisdiction over
the dispute referred to it for adjudication and up to that date it has the power to entertain an application in connection with such dispute. That stage
is not reached till the award becomes enforceable u/s 17-A. In the instant case, the Tribunal made the ex parte award on December 9, 1976. That
award was published by the Central Government in the Gazette of India dated December 25, 1976. The application for setting aside the ex parte
award was filed by respondent 3, acting on behalf of respondents 5 to 17 on January 19, 1977 i.e. before the expiry of 30 days of its publication
and was, therefore, rightly entertained by the Tribunal....
The said decision is therefore, an authority for the proposition that while an Industrial Court will have jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte award
but having regard to the provision contained in Section 17-A an application therefore must be filed before the expiry of 30 days from the
publication thereof. Till then Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute referred to it for adjudication and only upto that date, it has the power to
entertain an application in connection with such dispute.
In view of the above discussions, I.A. No. 56 of 2001 to condone the delay of 117 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte award
ought not to have been entertained by the labour Court and hence, the order passed by the labour Court is set aside. The writ petition is allowed
as prayed for. No costs.