Case Note & Summary
The petitioner workman filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging two orders of the Labour Court dated July 12, 2004 and December 20, 2004, which condoned the delay on the part of the employer and set aside an ex-parte award of reinstatement. The workman claimed that he was terminated in September 1990 without due process. A reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was made in September 1991, and after the employer's repeated adjournments and eventual absence, an ex-parte award was passed on January 13, 1997 directing reinstatement with backwages and continuity. The award was published on March 6, 1997. Over a year later, on July 15, 1998, the employer filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte award along with a condonation of delay. The Labour Court allowed both, restoring the reference subject to costs. The workman contended that under Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the award became enforceable 30 days after publication, i.e., on April 6, 1997, and thereafter the Labour Court became functus officio, lacking jurisdiction to entertain the application. The employer relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in M/s.New India Structural & Crane Works v. Abdul Rashid, which held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to Rule 26 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, allowing condonation of delay. The High Court analyzed the Supreme Court decisions in Grindlays Bank Limited v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Sangham Tape Company v. Hans Raj, which clearly held that the Labour Court retains jurisdiction to set aside an ex-parte award only until the award becomes enforceable under Section 17A. Once the award becomes enforceable, the Labour Court becomes functus officio and has no power to set aside the award. The court distinguished the Division Bench ruling by holding that the question of applying the Limitation Act arises only if the court has jurisdiction; if the court has already lost jurisdiction due to functus officio, there is no question of condoning delay. In the present case, the award became enforceable on April 6, 1997, and the application was filed on July 15, 1998, well after the Labour Court had lost jurisdiction. Consequently, the orders of the Labour Court were quashed and set aside, and the applications for setting aside the award were dismissed. The writ petition was allowed without costs.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Setting Aside Ex-Parte Award - Section 17A Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Labour Court retains jurisdiction to entertain an application for setting aside an ex-parte award only until the award becomes enforceable under Section 17A, i.e., within 30 days from publication. After expiry of that period, the court becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction. Held that the Labour Court's orders condoning delay and setting aside the ex-parte award were without jurisdiction and quashed. (Paras 4-6) B) Limitation Act - Applicability to Industrial Tribunal - Section 5 Limitation Act, 1963, Rule 26 Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 - The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to applications under Rule 26 of the Bombay Rules for setting aside an ex-parte award, but this only applies if the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application; if the court lacks jurisdiction due to functus officio, the question of condoning delay does not arise. Held that the Division Bench ruling in M/s.New India Structural & Crane Works does not assist the respondent because jurisdiction was already lost. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application for setting aside an ex-parte award after the award became enforceable under Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, i.e., after expiry of 30 days from its publication, and whether delay could be condoned in such circumstances.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed; the orders of the Labour Court dated July 12, 2004 and December 20, 2004 are quashed and set aside; the applications filed by the first respondent stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Labour Court retains jurisdiction to set aside ex-parte award only within 30 days from publication of award under Section 17A
- award becomes enforceable after 30 days from publication
- court becomes functus officio thereafter
- Rule 26 of Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules providing 30-day period does not extend jurisdiction beyond Section 17A
- Section 5 of Limitation Act applies to application under Rule 26 but only if court has jurisdiction
