HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.19068 of 2007 Date: October 21, 2010 Between: Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanama, Tirupati, rep. by its Executive Officer, K.V. Ramanachari. … Petitioner And 1. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur, rep. by its Chairman-cum- Presiding Officer and another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.19068 of 2007 ORDER: The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati challenges the order dated 20.6.2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.A. No.563 of 2005 in I.D. No.144 of 1997. By the said order the Labour Court set aside the ex parte order dated 20.10.2000 dismissing the I.D. 2. It is the case of the petitioner Devasthanams that the Labour Court became functus officio after the publication on 10.01.2001 of the award in I.D. No.144 of 1997. The second respondent-workman, on the other hand, sought to support the order under challenge. 3. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel representing Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned standing counsel for the petitioner Devasthanams, and Sri K. Jayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-workman. 4. Both the counsel supported the stands taken by the parties relying upon case law. 5. In Grindlays Bank Ltd., v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal[1], the Supreme Court dealing with the question as to when the Labour Court would become functus officio observed as hereunder: “The contention that the Tribunal had become functus officio and, therefore, had no jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte award and that the Central Government alone could set it aside, does not commend to us. Sub- section (3) of Section 20 of the Act provides that the proceedings before the Tribunal would be deemed to continue till the date on which the award becomes enforceable under Section 17-A. Under Section 17-A of the Act, an award becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under Section 17. The proceedings with regard to a reference under Section 10 of the Act are, therefore, not deemed to be concluded until the expiry of 30 days from the publication of the award. Till then the Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute referred to it for adjudication and up to that date it has the power to entertain an application in connection with such dispute. That stage is not reached till the award becomes enforceable under Section 17-A . . . . .” The above ratio was re-affirmed in the later judgments in Anil Sood v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II[2] and Sangham Tape Co., v. Hans Raj[3]. 6. Though in Anil Sood (2 supra), the Supreme Court observed that the power to proceed ex parte available under Rule 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 included the power to inquire whether or not there was sufficient cause for the absence of a party at the hearing and that if there was sufficient cause, the Tribunal would have power to set aside the ex parte award; the issue as to when the Tribunal would become functus officio in terms of Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not dealt with. 7. In Sangham Tape Co. (3 supra), the Supreme Court while confirming the legal position as laid down in Grindlays Bank Ltd., (1 supra), reiterated that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to set aside the award could be exercised within a limited time frame, namely, within 30 days from the date of publication of the award. The Court pointed out that once an award becomes enforceable in terms of Section 17-A of the Act of 1947, the Labour Court does not retain any jurisdiction in relation to setting aside of an award passed by it. In other words, as per this decision, 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. Dealing with the earlier judgment in Anil Sood (2 supra), the Supreme Court clarified that it did not lay down any law to the contrary and appeared to have been rendered on concession. 8. Though Sri K. Jayakumar, learned counsel for the second respondent-workman, sought to place reliance on the judgment of a learned judge of this Court in Syed Jalal v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, A.P., Hyderabad[4] and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rafiq v. Munshilal[5], neither of these judgments dealt with the powers of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal in the context of S.17-A of the Act of 1947. The general principles laid down in the afore-stated judgments have no application in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Sangham Tape Co. (3 supra), which read thus: “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 9 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 becomes enforceable under Section 17-A 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.” 9. This being the legal position, the second respondent-workman’s application to set aside the ex parte award dated 20.10.2000, having been filed in the year 2005, was well beyond the period of 30 days from the date of its publication on 10.01.2001. The same could not have been entertained by the Labour Court on that date as the Labour Court had become functus officio. The order dated 20.6.2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.A. No.563 of 2005 in I.D. No.144 of 1997 is therefore unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. 10. The writ petition is allowed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: October 21, 2010. BSB [1] 1980 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 420 [2] (2001) 10 Supreme Court Cases 534 [3] (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 331 [4] 1979 (1) ALT 164 [5] AIR 1981 (SC) 1400