( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4406 OF 2008 Balu s/o Bhagwan Muley, R/o C/o Trade Union Centre, Bashirganj, Beed. PETITIONER VERSUS Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Beed. RESPONDENT ..... Mr. Pradeep Shahane, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 29th June, 2009] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. ( 2 ) 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns judgement and order rendered by the learned Judge of the Labour Court on 06-02-2008 in Misc. (ID) Reference Case No. 1/2004. 3. By the impugned judgement and order, the learned Judge of the Labour Court reviewed the exparte award dated 27-08-2003 and recalled the same. 4. The petitioner was working as a daily wager in Sub-Division, Public Works Department at Paranda. He was earning Rs. 44.45 per day and alleged worked for more than 240 days continuously prior to his termination on 07-02-1994. He asserted that he was not served with any notice nor retrenchment compensation was paid. He approached the Labour Court by filing reference application bearing IDA No. 55/2000. The Reference was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under section 10 (c) read with section 12 (5) and section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent did not appear and, therefore, the Reference bearing IDA No. 55/2000 proceeded exparte. The petitioner filed his ( 3 ) affidavit alleging that termination of his services violated provisions of section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Judge of the Labour Court accepted the version of the petitioner and allowed the Reference. By order dated 27-08-2003, award was drawn holding that termination of the petitioner was illegal, improper and void. Therefore, the Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in the service with continuity of the service and backwages. The respondent thereafter filed review application which was treated as Misc. Reference IDA No. 1/2004. That application was filed on 13th January, 2004. It appears that the State also filed writ petition No. 4543/2005 challenging the said Award. This Cour, by order dated 04-09-2007, directed that application pending before the Labour Court shall be disposed of within period of four (4) months. It is pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge then observed that there was no expression on the merits of the matter. Thus, the learned Judge of the Labour Court was required to take his own decision. 5. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. ( 4 ) 6. It is manifestly clear that the review application bearing Misc. Reference (IDA) No. 1/2004 was filed after four and half (4½) months. It was certainly not filed within period of 30 days. The Award had become final. The Award is required to be challenged by filing such an application within 30 days under section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In “Sangham Tape Company v. Hans Raj” 2004 III CLR 776, the Apex Court observed : “An industrial adjudication is governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act) and the rules framed thereunder. The rules framed under the Act may provide for applicability of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Once the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to the industrial adjudication, indisputably the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 thereof would be attracted. But unlike an ordinary Civil Court, the Industrial Tribunals and the Labour Courts have limited jurisdiction in that behalf. An award made by an Industrial Court ( 5 ) becomes enforceable under Section 17A of the Act on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication. Once the award becomes enforceable, the Industrial Tribunal and/or Labour Court becomes functus officio.” 7. The grounds for filing the review application are also not worth much serious consideration. It was agitated before the Labour Court that the information about such reference case could not be obtained due to official difficulty. It was due to hastles in the official procedure that the respondent was unable to look after the litigation. It was contended that the petitioner had not joined Public Works Department Sub- Division, Patoda as a party to the litigation and, therefore, the award was rendered exparte. The learned Judge of the Labour Court should not have accepted such kind of explanation. For, the petitioner had joined the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Beed i.e. the authority of the Head Office as a party. It was for the Public Works Department to locate the relevant details when the application itself indicated that the ( 6 ) petitioner was working in the Sub Division at Patoda. The learned Judge of the Labour Court held that the review application was within limitation because a notice of award was received by the respondent on 19-12-2003. Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would make it amply clear that an award shall become enforceable on the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication under section 17. It does not say that it will become enforceable from date of communication of the notice. The award became enforceable from the date of publication of award after expiry of thirty (30) days and, therefore, the review application could not be entertained in view of the above referred dictum of the Apex Court. Besides, the grounds put forth for filing of review application are inadequate and as such, the reference application could not be accepted in legal parlance. 8. For the reasons aforestated, the impugned judgement and order of the learned Judge of the Labour Court is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgement ( 7 ) and order is quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP4406-08