C.W.P. No. 7809 of 2010 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7809 of 2010 Date of Decision: Aug. 29,2011 Ravinder Kumar .......................................... Petitioner Versus Timken Services Pvt. and another ................ Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for respondent No.1. ... RITU BAHRI, J. Petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 23.3.2010 (Annexure P7) passed by the Labour Court-I, Gurgaon, by which the application of the Management has been allowed and the award dated 22.1.2008 (Annexure P2) has been set aside. The petitioner was appointed in September 1997 as D.G. Technician at a monthly salary of `1700/-. He continuously worked with the Management till 31.1.2000. On C.W.P. No. 7809 of 2010 [ 2 ] 1.2.2000 his services were illegally terminated. The workman filed his claim statement on 25.9.2003. Counsel for the Management had appeared and sought time for filing reply. Thereafter on 7.4.2005 the Management was proceeded ex-parte and thereafter award dated 22.1.2008 (Annexure P2) was passed reinstating the workman with 30% back wages. On 20.2.2008 the award was published by the Deputy Labour Commissioner as per requirement of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. An application dated 3.11.2008 was filed by the Management for setting aside the ex-parte award. This application was dismissed on 5.6.2009 (Annexure P5) as no one had chosen to appear for the Management. Subsequently, another application for setting aside the ex-parte award was filed in March 2010 (Annexure P6). The Labour Court vide order dated 23.3.2010 (Annexure P7) has allowed this application and the matter has been remitted back for fresh decision by the Labour Court. Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, counsel for the petitioner, has argued that this application is liable to be dismissed in view of the Supreme Court decision in M/s Sangham Tape Company v. Hans Raj 2004 LAB. I.C. 4039 and decision of this High Court in Veena Rani v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon and another (C.W.P. No. 17146 of 2000). He has placed reliance on these C.W.P. No. 7809 of 2010 [ 3 ] judgments to contend that after the award was published on 20.2.2008, it became operational under Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication. The proceedings under Section 10 of the Act are deemed to have been concluded. Once the period of 30 days has elapsed the Labour Court became functous officio and and has no jurisdiction to entertain any application after the expiry of 30 days. In the present case, after the publication of the award, the first application was filed on 3.11.2008 i.e. after the expiry of the period of 30 days of publication. This application was dismissed for non prosecution and the second application without disclosing the fact of first application was not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in view of the Supreme Court judgment. Mr. Sumeet Goel, learned counsel for respondent No.1, has argued that on 7.4.2005 when the case was taken up and the Management was proceeded ex-parte, no notice had been served upon the Management as on the earlier two dates the Presiding Officer was on leave. It was a case of sheer negligence on the part of the Labour Court not to inform the Management about the date fixed. In the facts of the present case the first application for setting aside the ex-parte award was filed on 3.11.2008 after the lapse of 30 days of publication of the award i.e. 20.2.2008. This application was dismissed for non- C.W.P. No. 7809 of 2010 [ 4 ] prosecution on 5.6.2009. The second application has been wrongly allowed by observing that the Court had not issued notice to the counsel for the Management that the case was fixed for 7.4.2005. Once the counsel had made his appearance when the claim statement was filed and sought time for filing reply, there was no necessity to send a notice again informing the date of hearing by the Labour Court. The Supreme Court in M/s Sangham Tape Company's case (supra) has held that after the expiry of 30 days the award becomes enforceable and Labour Court becomes functous officio. In paragraph 8, the Supreme Court has observed as under:- “The said decision is, therefore, an authority for the proposition that while an Industrial Court will have jurisdiction to set aside an ex-parte award but having regard to the provision contained in Section 17-A of the Act, an application therefor must be filed before the expiry of 30 days from the publication thereof. Till then Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute referred to it for adjudication and only upto that date, it has the power to entertain an application in connection with such dispute.” In the facts of the present case, the Management had filed the second application for setting aside the ex- C.W.P. No. 7809 of 2010 [ 5 ] parte award without disclosing the fact that the first application has been dismissed on 5.6.2009. The workman has been unnecessarily dragged to litigation even though an award was passed in his favour and became final after publication way back on 20.2.2008. The application for setting aside the ex-parte award was not maintainable and the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the application when it had become functous officio. Writ petition is allowed. Order dated 23.3.2010 (Annexure P7) is set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to costs of `5,000/-. 29.8.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE