1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10273 OF 2009 M/s. Mamilon Threads & ors. .... Petitioners vs Brujesh Ramratan Yadav .... Respondent Mr.Mayuresh Dilip Madgi for the petitioner. Mr.Indrajeet Kulkarni for respondent. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 12th April, 2010 P.C.: 1 Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2 The petitioner has invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and thereby challenged the Order dated 27.07.2009 passed by the Third Labour Court at Thane whereby his application to set aside the exparte Award dated 31.12.2007, was dismissed. The case is that he received the certified copy of the Award on 3.7.2008 and therefore he preferred the application on 14.07.2008. The said application itself was rejected on 24.10.2008 by giving detailed reasons and by referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of the High Courts. The finding is very clear that the petitioner’s employee Mr.S.P. Mishra received the letter dated 15.05.2008 on 29.05.2008 and therefore, this amounts to first knowledge regarding the Award. Therefore, the 2 submission that the petitioner received the Award on 3.7.2008 is unacceptable as there is no justification given to the fact that what happened after receipt of the said letter on 29.05.2008. There is no denial or any objection to this fact, including the authority of Mr. Mishra to accept the letter. 3 Even the evidence of applicant with regard to the RPAD/acknowledgment receipt of the notice in reference, though does not bear the signature, but the postal remarks just cannot be overlooked and that itself is not sufficient to accept the case of filing of application within limitation as contended, from the date of receipt of Award on 3/7/2008. 4 Admittedly, the Award was published on 21.03.2008. As per the case of Vasant Govind Shirsekar v/s. Mhatre Pen and Plaswtics Pvt.Ltd. & ors., 2005 (2) CLR 969, the limitation starts from the date of first knowledge. Once the Award is published under Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, the Court becomes functus officio. The Application is, therefore, as having not been filed within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the Award, therefore, also rightly rejected by the Courts below. 5 The other submission is that no sufficient reason was given by the learned Judge while rejecting the application on merits, by relying on M/s.Harrai Desai & Sons Stores vs. Smt. Leelavati S. Vaza, 2000(4) Bom. C.R. 66, is unacceptable. We have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case which are distinct and distinguishable. 6 The submission with regard to the clear provision and the interpretation of Rule 26 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 needs no discussion. In the present case as there is a clear finding given by the Labour Court with regard 3 to the knowledge/receipt of the Award, through letter dated 15.05.2008 on 29.05.2008 and as there is no contra material on record, the submission that the petitioner got the knowledge on 03.07.2008 and, therefore, the Application so filed on 14.07.2008 rightly not accepted. The first receipt and the knowledge of the Award itself had commenced the period of limitation, even if we accept the case of the petitioner, based upon Rule 26(2) as contended. 7 Taking overall view of the matter, I see here is no perversity in the order. 8 The Petition is accordingly dismissed. 10 Rule is discharged accordingly. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)