IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17531 of 1999 Between: The Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Kohir, Medak District. … Petitioner AND Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Rep., by its Presiding Officer, Nampally, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Miss. Shanti for Sri M. Laxman This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17531 of 1999 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in rejecting the petitioner’s application filed for setting aside ex parte award dated 11.11.1997, as illegal. Heard Miss. S. Shanti, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for respondent No.2 despite service of notice. Respondent No.2 raised an industrial dispute before respondent No.1 Tribunal questioning his retrenchment from employment. The said dispute was entertained as I.D.No.130 of 1996. The petitioner was set ex parte by respondent No.1 and award dated 11.11.1997 was passed. Thereafter the petitioner filed I.A.SR.No.703 of 1999 in I.D.No.130 of 1996 seeking setting aside of the ex parte award. The petitioner raised the plea in his affidavit filed in support of the application that though summons were received in the I.D., in view of the collusion and fraud played by the Grampanchayat staff at the instance of respondent No.2, the I.D. could not be contested. The said I.A. was dismissed by respondent No.1 on the ground that under Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, thirty days time is prescribed for implementation of the award and that the application was filed after a lapse of 578 days. In Grindlays Bank Limited vs. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others[1] the Supreme Court held that though specific power is not conferred on the Labour Courts and the Industrial Tribunals to set aside an ex parte award, the power to pass an ex parte award includes within itself the power to set aside the same. The Supreme Court further held that if an application for setting aside the ex parte award is filed before the expiry of thirty days after publication of the award, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal will have jurisdiction to entertain such an application and set aside the award and that thereafter they will become functus officio. In the instant case, the award was passed on 11.11.1997 and the same was published in Gazette vide G.O.Rt.No.3108 dated 29.11.1997. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte award in August, 1999. Applying the abovementioned ratio, respondent No.1 has become functus officio in view of expiry of more than thirty days after publication of award. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order of respondent No.1 in refusing to entertain the application for setting aside the ex parte award. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.21808 of 1999 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.12.2008 ES [1] AIR 1981 SC 606