MADHAV PARSAD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in the present writ petition is to set aside the ex parte order dated 20.10.2000 (Annexure P -2) passed by the Labour Court, Gurgaon whereby, the case was to come up for ex parte evidence of management due to the absence of the workman and the subsequent ex parte award dated 22.12.2000 (Annexure P -3) whereby, the reference was disposed of on the ground that the workman had received his full and final settlement of his entire claim by receiving Rs. 1,774/ -. Challenge has also been laid to the subsequent order dated 30.07.2008 (Annexure P -9) whereby, the application filed by the workman for setting aside of the said orders was dismissed.

(2.) A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the workman issued a demand notice under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') on 25.03.1998 pleading that he had joined the respondent -management on 28.11.1996 on the post of a Helper and was drawing Rs. 1,600/ - per month at that point of time. The management, on 24.03.1998, got forcible signatures on the resignation letters without any retrenchment compensation and it amounted to unfair labour practice. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Labour Court in the year 1999 whereby, the ex parte proceedings were initiated against the workman without his knowledge and he could not even submit his claim statement. Resultantly, the reference was disposed of, as noticed above. The workman thereafter filed his application on 04.11.2005 specifically pleading that the information of the same was not received by him till the filing of the application and that he had never given his consent for the full and final settlement. It was admitted by the management that no claim statement had been filed on his behalf and the only defence was that he had already taken his full and final settlement. It was admitted by the management that no claim statement had been filed on his behalf and the only defence was that he had already taken his full and final settlement of Rs. 1,774/ -. The workman also appeared in support of his application and submitted his affidavit in support of the said averments and also submitted the affidavit of Ambika Pokhrel, who was working as a cashier in the Union of the company. One Puran Lal Chaudhry was also examined as PW -3, who was also member of the Union.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the Labour Court has no jurisdiction once the award has been published as has been held by the Apex Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others, : 1980 (Supp) SCC 420. In the said case, it has been held that once the publication has been effected, then the Tribunal becomes functus officio. In the present case, the application was filed only on 04.11.2005 and award already stood published i.e. 5 years earlier. Therefore, the Labour Court was well justified in rejecting the application. The said view has also been followed by Apex Court in Sangham Tape Company vs. Hans Raj, : (2005) 9 SCC 331. It was observed in Grindlays Bank's case (supra) that the provisions of the Act are for ensuring social justice to both employers and employees and to bring peace and harmony and maintain cordial relations between the parties. The proceedings were an endeavour to resolve the competing claim of both the parties with a purpose to find out a just and fair solution and where a party was faced with an ex parte award, the Tribunal had the power to set aside the ex parte award within the period prescribed under the Act. The relevant portion reads thus: -