MODERN INDIA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the employer against the order of the Labour Court dated 31.3.1983 (Annexure -D) whereby it set aside its own order dated 29.7.1992 (Annexure -A), passing an ex - parte award against the respondent employee. By the impugned order dated 31.3.1983 the Labour Court has restored the reference under the provisions of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, by accepting the sufficient cause shown by the employee for his absence on 29.7.1982 before the Labour Court, when the award was passed ex -parte against him.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has given us necessary facts for decision of this petition. The ex -parte award (Annexure -A), in the case, was passed on 29.7.1982. In accordance with the provisions of section 17 -A of the I -D Act, the award was duly published on 27.8.1982, within thirty days from the date of its passing. The award came into operation of expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication i.e. with effect from 27.9.1982, in accordance with the provisions of section 17 -A(i) of the Act. The application for setting aside the ex -parte award and restoration of the reference was made by the respondent employee on 12.10.1982. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that such an application for restoration of reference was incompetent after the award was passed and had become enforceable. It was open to the employee to make an application for setting aside the ex -parte award and restoration of reference only within thirty days from the date of its publication and not after it had come into force on expiry of thirty days under section 17 -A (i) of the I.D. Act. After the award is published and became enforceable, the Labour Court became fanctus officio and is denuded of its power to set aside the award and restore the reference. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others (AIR 1981 SC 606), wherein it has been held that Rule 22 read with Rule 24 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, confers inherent power on the Labour Court to set aside the ex -parte award on principles contained in Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but such power cannot be exercised after the award is passed and comes into force. In view of the above clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the Labour Court was clearly in error in entertaining the application and in setting aside the ex -parte award.