NORTHERN COAL FIELDS LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. A short but simple and very interesting question has been raised by Sri A. K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and has very nicely formulated the same, namely whether the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court has jurisdiction to set aside and/or recall the order of ex parte Award after the same was sent for publication in view of proviso to sub-rule (9) of Rule 10-B of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 10-B is quoted below : "10-B. Proceeding before the Labour Court. Tribunal or National Tribunal- (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9) In case any party defaults or fails to appear a. any stage of the labour court, Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be, may proceed with the reference ex parte and decide the refer ence/application in the absence of the defaulting party : Provided that the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, may on the application of either party filed before the submission of the award revoke the order that the case shall proceed ex parte, if it is satisfied that the absence of the party was on justifiable ground. " Proviso to the said sub-rule specify "the order that the case shall proceed ex parte" may be revoked on an application of either party, if filed before the submission of the Award, provided if it is satisfied that the absence of the party was justified. In the present case the admitted facts are that the proceeding was fixed on 26-9-1989 for evidence both oral and documentary. On the said date the workman did not appear, though learned counsel for employer was present and no evidence was filed on behalf of the workman. Therefore, no claim Award was passed on 26-9-1989. While passing the said Award the learned Presiding Officer had also directed, "let six copies of this award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour for pub lication. " The said order was also passed on 26-9-1989.

(2.) SRI A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said direction clinches the issues inasmuch as by means of the said direc tion the learned Presiding officer had submitted the award for its publication. Therefore the Labour Court/industrial Tribunal could not have exercised the jurisdiction to recall the order or award since according to him by reason of submission of the said award for publication, he becomes functous-officio.

(3.) IN that view of the matter I do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 3-11-1989 passed by the presiding Officer, INdustrial Tribunal/ Labourt Court, in Adjudication case No. 66 of 1989. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will be, however, no order as so costs. Petition dismissed. .