LML LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arises out of order dated 14/08/1998 passed by the first respondent whereby and whereunder the petitioner's application for setting aside the ex parte award dated 10/01/1998 was rejected on the ground that he did not have requisite jurisdiction to entertain the same having regard to the fact that the period of thirty days had expired from the data of publication of the award in terms of Section 17 read with Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman raised an industrial dispute as regards the termination of his services which allegedly took place in the year 1991. Delhi Administration which is the appropriate authority having regard to the existence of the industrial dispute referred the same for adjudication by the first respondent. Before the first respondent the matter was marked as ID No. 491/92. Contention of the petitioner is that no notice was served on him. Contention of the workman is that it was so served and in fact the petitioner had appeared before the Tribunal. However, before us the only question which arises for consideration is as to whether the first respondent acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the order in not entertaining the petitioner's application.

(2.) The said question is no longer res integra having to a recent decision in Anil Sood v. Presiding Officer, 2001-1- LLJ-1113 wherein the Apex Court held at p. 1114:

(3.) Counsel appearing for the respondent however submitted that in the event this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 entertains the application the award which was obtained by her client in 1988 shall be set at naught. In the alternative, counsel contends that in the case of this nature Section 17-B should be applied for which an application has already been moved. In this case, this Court is not concerned with the merit or otherwise of the award dated 10/02/1998. The petitioner in this application has not and could not question the validity of the said award nor could it be questioned on merits. This Court is concerned only with the order dated August 14, 1998. This Court in these proceedings is not concerned with the correctness of the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties. It is for the first respondent alone to consider the same on merits and pass an appropriate order. It is for respondent No. 1 in the event the petitioner herein is able to make out sufficient cause for non-appearance before it, to set aside the ex parte award on such terms as it may deem fit and proper. In this situation, we are of the opinion that having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court this Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and pass appropriate order under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.