C.W.P. No.17146 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.17146 of 2000 Date of Decision: 22.10.2009 Veena Rani .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate for respondent No.2. 2. C.R. No.2729 of 2005 Improvement Trust, Gurgaon .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition in C.W.P. No.17146 of 2000 has been filed at the instance of the workman, who had obtained an award for reinstatement and back wages on 01.07.1999. Earlier, the C.W.P. No.17146 of 2000 -2- management had been set ex parte on 01.04.1998 and admittedly, the management had not filed any application for setting aside the ex parte award within the time admissible by law namely within 30 days from the date when the award became final. It was an admitted case that the award had been published on 23.08.1999 and the application for setting aside the award was filed subsequently on 27.03.2000. The Labour Court had taken the application on file and directed the evidence to be given. It was at this stage, the workman had come to this Court by means of a writ petition questioning the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain an application after it had become functus officio. The action of the workman was in the context of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others AIR 1981 SC 606 and subsequent decision rendered in M/s Sangham Tape Company Vs. Hans Raj 2004 LIC 4039. The latter judgment, while referring to Grindlays Bank Ltd.'s case observed as follows: “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 C.W.P. No.17146 of 2000 -3- Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute referred to it for adjudication and only upto the date. It has the power to entertain an application in connection with such dispute.” 2. At the time when the writ petition was admitted and notice was sent, this Hon'ble Court had directed further proceedings before the Labour Court to be continued but however, directed that the final order shall not be passed on the application filed by the management by setting aside the ex parte award. Finding that in spite of permission for continuation of proceedings before the Labour Court, the management had not availed the opportunity to produce the witnesses and let in evidence, the Court directed that the evidence of the management to be closed on 17.08.2004. Finding that the writ petition granting the order of stay had enabled the management to take an advantage, the workman had volunteered to have the stay vacated. The stay was consequently vacated by this Hon'ble Court in writ petition. After the stay was vacated on 03.12.2004 and when it seemed imminent that the Labour Court was going to pass an order on the application, the management has come by means of a civil revision in C.R. No.2729 of 2005 impugning the order of the Labour Court treating the evidence of the management as closed on 17.08.2004. All this exercise has come to nothing for the workman. The workman, who had the benefit of an award on C.W.P. No.17146 of 2000 -4- 01.07.1999 is still in limbo unable to secure to himself any relief. I have no hesitation to characterize the conduct of the management as highly questionable. The application for setting aside the ex parte award itself was not maintainable and the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the application when it had become functus officio. 3. The writ petition No.17146 of 2000 is allowed. Consequently, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The petitioner in the writ petition and the respondent in civil revision is entitled to costs assessed at Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3000/- respectively in civil writ petition and civil revision. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 22, 2009 Pankaj*