1 13 wp 3282.11.doc srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3282 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Ms. Sangita Deo h/f Mr. Nitin A. Kulkarni for Petitioner. Mr.K.S.Bapat with Mr. Hemant Telkar for Haresh Mehta and Co. for Respondent. CORAM : K.K.TATED,J. DATE : 13/06/2011 PC: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Rule made returnable immediately. By consent of the parties, matter is taken for final hearing. 3 By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of 2 13 wp 3282.11.doc India, the Petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 20th November, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court, Pune in Misc. Application (IDA) No.92 of 2006 dismissing the Petitioner’s application for condonation of 31 days delay for setting aside the award which was passed ex-parte on 1st July, 2005. 4 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that because of ill health and as the Petitioner lost the envelop containing notice of Labur Court, he failed to file an application for setting aside the ex-parte order within 30 days. She further submits that the learned Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the 3 13 wp 3282.11.doc Petitioner had to explain day to day delay for condonation of delay for setting aside the ex-parte order. 5 On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that the Labour Court has no power to condone the delay, if the application is filed after 30 days from the date of publication of the award. He submits that in the present case, award passed on 15th July, 2005 and the same was published on 15th July, 2006. The Petitioner filed application for setting aside the ex-parte award on 16th September, 2006 i.e. beyond 30 days. He further submits that the petitioner admitted in his pleading before this court that they received the copy of the award in the month of July, 2006. Therefore, 4 13 wp 3282.11.doc admittedly, the petitioner filed the application for setting aside the ex-parte order beyond the period of limitation i.e. 30 days. Therefore, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner’s application for setting aside the ex- parte award. In support of his submission he relied on judgments in the matter of Sangham Tape Co. vs. Hans Raj reported in (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 331 and Jammu Tehsil vs. Hakumar Singh and Others reported in (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 193. In both these cases, the Apex Court held that the Labour Court can set aside ex-parte award provided the application is preferred within 30 days from the 5 13 wp 3282.11.doc date of publication of the award. Upon expiry of the said 30 days, the award having become enforceable, the Labour Court/Tribunal becomes functus officio. In this case, as the application for setting aside the award has been filed, beyond 30 days from the date of publication of the award, it could not be entertained by the Labour Court. 6 Hence, there is no substance in the petition. It is dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.)