ERUMELI ESTATE Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ proceeding, Mr. K. P. Abraham, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey in Industrial Dispute No. 48 of 1958. In particular, the learned counsel attacks the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to embark upon an enquiry, which is the subject matter of issue No. 1; and there are also attacks made on the findings recorded under issues Nos. 6 and 7. The other questions decided under the various issues other than these issues do not arise for decision by this court.

(2.) Before I go into the merits of the attack relating to the findings recorded on issues 1, 6 and 7, I will deal with a general attack made by Mr. K. P. Abraham, learned counsel, based upon the provisions of S.17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. That is, according to the learned counsel, the award has not been published by the State Government within the period mentioned in sub-s.(1) of S.17 of the Act. The award itself is dated 25-6-60 and it is seen from Ext. P. 1 that the award has been received by the State Government on 29-6-60. Under the provision of sub-s.(1) of S.17, it is provided that the award is to be published in such manner as the Government may think fit within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt. Therefore, the State Government should have published it within 30 days of the receipt by it, namely, 29-7-1960. But actually it is seen that the award was published only in the State Gazette dated 2nd August 1960. Therefore, the contention of Mr. K. P. Abraham, learned counsel, is inasmuch as there has been a violation of the provisions of sub-s.(1) of S.17, which, according to him, is mandatory, the result will be that the award itself is void and therefore no action can be taken on the basis of this award.

(3.) This contention could very well have been avoided, to say frankly, if the State Government had been a little more diligent and had published the award, as they could have done and as they are ordinarily bound to do, within the time mentioned in sub-s.(1) of S.17. But the question is whether the non publication of the award within the period mentioned in S.17(1) really invalidates the award itself.