IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 27..08..2008 C O R A M The Honourable Mr. A.K. Ganguly, Chief Justice and The Honourable Mr. Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla Writ Appeal No.913 of 2008 The Management, Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Kuralagam, Chennai-108. .. Appellant/Petitioner versus 1. P. Subramaniam 2. The Labour Court, Salem. .. Respondents/Respondents Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 21.1.2008 made in W.P. No.9626 of 2007. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in I.D.No.56/2003 dated 16.12.2003 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal. For Appellant : Mr. S. Packiaraj J U D G M E N T ( Delivered by The Honourable the Chief Justice ) Heard the counsel for the appellant at the stage of admission of this writ appeal arising from a judgment and order dated 21.1.2008 passed by a learned Judge of the writ court. By the said order, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition by a speaking order. 2. The facts of the case are that the Labour Judge, Salem, as the presiding officer, passed an award on 16.12.2003 in a dispute between the appellant and its workman which was referred to the Labour Court. While passing the award, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem has recorded that despite repeated summons being issued to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent before the Labour Court, the appellant before us, the Management never chose to appear before the Labour Court. Thereupon, paper publication was ordered. Even then, the Management did not appear and as such, the award was passed ex parte. After the award was passed ex parte, a petition was filed before the Labour Court by the Management for setting aside the award. The award is dated 16.12.2003 and the petition which was affirmed and filed before the Labour Court appears to have been filed on 5.7.2004, without any application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, an application of condonation of delay was filed in November, 2004. In the application which was filed for setting aside the ex parte award, there is no explanation why the Management did not appear in the proceedings despite service of summons. It has also not been explained when the award was received by the Management. 3. It is well known that under Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an award is to be published within 30 days from the date of its receipt by the appropriate Government and an award becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under Section 17, this is provided under Section 17-A of the Act. Under Section 17(2), it is provided that subject to the provision of Section 17-A, an award published under sub-section (1) shall be final and shall not be called in question by any Court in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, in the context of this provision, it is very important for the appellant to disclose when he receive the award after it was published. Without disclosing these facts, the application was made for setting aside the ex parte award before the Labour Court. 4. It is well settled that the Labour Court becomes functus officio after 30 days from the date of publication of the award. Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sangham Tape Co. vs. Hans Raj reported in (2005) 9 S.C.C. 331. Paragraphs 8 and 10 of the said judgment, which are relevant in this context, are set out below :- "8. 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 the Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute referred to it for adjudication, and only up to that date, it has the power to entertain an application in connection with such dispute. ... 10. In view of this Court’s decision in Grindlays Bank2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such jurisdiction could be exercised by the Labour Court within a limited time frame, namely, within thirty days from the date of publication of the award. Once an award becomes enforceable in terms of Section 17-A of the Act, the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, does not retain any jurisdiction in relation to setting aside of an award passed by it. In other words, upon the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the award in the gazette, the same having become enforceable, the Labour Court would become functus officio." In the application which has been filed subsequently for condonation of delay also, no explanation is offered for condoning the delay of 147 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte award. Considering all these facts, the Labour Court, by an order dated 1.11.2006 dismissed the application filed by the appellant to set aside the ex parte award. In paragraph 7 of the order, the Labour Court has recorded that the ex parte award was sent to the appellant by R.P.A.D. dated 25.5.2004 and the same was acknowledged by the appellant under Exs.R.1 to R.3. On 24.3.2004, the Labour and Employment Department directed the Labour Officer to display the award passed by the Labour Court in the Notice Board. On those facts, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to file its application to set aside the ex parte award within 30 days from the date of publication of the award by the Labour and Employment Department. Therefore, the Labour Court held that the said petition is not maintainable in view of the decision in Sangham Tape Co. (supra). 5. We are of the view that the learned Judge of the Labour Court, while dismissing the application filed by the appellant for setting aside the ex parte award, has proceeded on a correct legal position and the learned Judge of the writ court rightly refused to interfere with the same. We do not find any reason to take a different view. The order of the Labour Court refusing to set aside the ex parte award is affirmed and the order of the learned Judge of the writ court is confirmed. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2008 is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ab https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Labour Court, Salem. 1 CC To Mr.S. Packiaraj, Advocate, SR NO.48121 Writ Appeal No.913 of 2008 vm(co) pmk/6.9.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/