S. HAKUMAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Labour Court at Jammu on 27.02.1992 passed an ex-parte award. This is apparent from the Notification published in the J&K Govt. Gazette on 22.10.1992. Before proceeding further it would be apt to mention that in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 680/1994 on 02.08.1994 the date on which the award is said to have been passed is indicated as 26.4.1991. Same date is repeated even in the order passed on 05.05.1999. It appears that this date has been incorrectly mentioned. It appears that the petition before the Labour Court was preferred on 26.04.1991, but the award was pronounced on 27.02.1992. This was published in the Govt.Gazette on 22.10.1992. This award was in favour of the appellant Hakumat Singh.

(2.) The further fact is that an application for setting aside the ex-parte award came to be filed before the Labour Court. On this application, the appellant was called upon to show cause 27.04.1997 was the date fixed in this regard. In the meanwhile the execution of the award was stayed.

(3.) The further fact is that the present appellant filed a writ petition challenging the award of the labour court. Writ of certiorari as also a writ of prohibition was sought. Prayer was made that Labour Court be restrained from proceeding further. Writ petition came to be dismissed. It was observed that the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte award passed by it. Against the view expressed by the Learned Single Judge, the present Letters Patent Appeal was preferred. The appeal was heard by two learned Judges of this Court. There was a difference of opinion . A.M. Mir, J. was of the opinion that once an award stands published and a period of 30 days has expired from the date of the publication then the Labour Court would become functus officio and thereafter, it would have no jurisdiction to deal with the application. O.P. Sharma, J. was, however, of the opinion that the Labour Court would have jurisdiction. As there was difference of opinion between the learned two Judges the matter has been placed before me. The Division Bench, which heard the matter, formulated four points for consideration. For facility of reference the points on which opinions has to be expressed have been formulated by the Division Bench. These are being re-produced below:-