CO-OPERATIVE SUB REGISTRAR Vs. BALARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These civil revision petitions are at the instance of the employer challenging the order of the Labour Court, in and by which, the Labour Court has condoned the delay in seeking to set aside the order of dismissing the I. D. Nos. 5 of 2009 and 148 of 2002 for default. The said order was passed on 17. 09. 2010 and 28. 11. 2008. The petitioner/workman had filed applications in I. A. Nos. 78 of 2011 and 277 of 2012 seeking for condonation of delay of 138 and 135 days in filing the applications to restore the I. D. Nos. 5 of 2009 and 148 of 2002. These applications were opposed by the respondent/Management contending that these applications have been filed after 30 days after the award was published and therefore, these applications are not maintainable. In fact, the respondent/Management confined itself to the maintainability of the application. The Labour Court chose to condone the delay observing that there is no evidence of publication of award. These orders of the Labour Court have been challenged in the present civil revision petitions.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. Kalaiselvam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T. Leninkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in C. R. P. (MD). No. 2415 of 2013 and Mr. S. Arunachalam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Management in C. R. P. (MD). No. 2416 of 2013.

(3.) Mr. Kalaiselvam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the Labour Court became functus officio and 30 days after the publication of the award, it has no power to condone the delay.