STATE OF U.P. Vs. BANDU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Birendra Pratap Singh learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bhoopendra Nath Singh for the contesting respondent workman.

(2.) This petition principally lays a challenge to an order passed by the concerned Labour Court rejecting an application seeking recall of an ex parte award which was rendered. The sole ground on which this application has come to be rejected is that the application for recall was made 30 days after the publication of the award in question. That a power to undertake a procedural review stands vested inherently in the Labour Court is an issue which need not detain the Court since undisputedly it stands settled in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal [1980 Supp. SCC 420]. The only issue which therefore, survives for consideration is whether after the expiry of 30 days from the publication of the award, the Labour Court become functus officio and upon the award becoming enforceable is not empowered to entertain an application for recall of an ex parte award. The conflicting decisions which were rendered by the Supreme Court on this issue stands conclusively settled by three learned Judges in Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. v. Phool Chand [(2018) 16 SCC 567] wherein the following principles were enunciated:-

(3.) In view thereof the position as such stands settled and constrains the Court to hold that the Labour Court was clearly incorrect in rejecting the application merely because it had come to be made 30 days post publication of the award.