Dismissed

Mrs.Kamlesh Lamba v. P.O.L.C.Patiala and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2008CR/2563/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A revision was dismissed rejecting the contention that a Labour Court could set aside an ex parte award filed after the 30-day limitation period. The court relied on Sangham Tape Co. to hold that the Tribunal becomes functus officio upon expiry of that period.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed maintaining that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application after 30 days.

Mrs.Kamlesh Lamba Vs P.O.L.C.Patiala… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

CR No.2563 of 1992

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.2563 of 1992

¶5

Date of Decision: 5.12.2008

Mrs.Kamlesh Lamba

....Petitioner

Vs.

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr.

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma

¶12

Present: Mr.Sarwan Singh, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.N.S.Rapri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

None for the respondents.

¶14

Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral)

¶15

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.7.1992 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala vide which application moved by the petitioner for setting aside ex parte award dated 15.9.1988 was ordered to be dismissed.

¶16

The petitioner sought reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act) to challenge her termination. State Government in exercise of powers conferred under section 10 (1) of the Act referred the dispute for decision to the Labour Court, Patiala.

¶17

CR No.2563 of 1992

¶18

¶19

As no body appeared on behalf of the petitioner reference was disposed of for want of prosecution.

¶20

The award was published on 12.1.1990 in the Punjab Government Gazette.

¶21

The petitioner thereafter filed an application on 12.9.1991 for restoration of reference and for setting aside award dated 15.9.1988.

¶22

The learned Labour Court has been pleased to dismiss the application by holding that after the passage of 30 days' time from publication of the award, Labour Court became functus officio and could not entertain any application with respect to the award made.

¶23

Mr.Sarwan Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has challenged the impugned order by placing reliance upon the judgment of this court in the case of Devinder Kumar Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurgaon and others 1999 (3) RSJ 306; judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of V.P.Sharma Vs. POLC-X and others 2000(2) RSJ 53; judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of H ydro-Tech Engg. Company & Anr. Vs. N.C.T. Of Delhi and others 2006 (2) RSA 569 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satnam Verma Vs. Union of India AIR 1985 SC 294.

¶24

However, on consideration of the mater, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

In the case of Devinder Kumar Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurgaon and others (supra) this court refused to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction to set aside an order passed by the learned Labour Court setting aside ex parte award on an application moved. This court has refused to exercise the writ jurisdiction by observing that in case

¶26

CR No.2563 of 1992

¶27

¶28

the award was before writ court it was liable to be set aside for want of notice. Thus, the court nowhere laid down that the Labour Court would have jurisdiction to entertain an application even after expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of award.

¶29

In the case of V.P.Sharma Vs. POLC-X and others (supra) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction has set aside the award by holding that the absence of the petitioner was bona fide and therefore, ex parte award was liable to be set aside.

¶30

Again in the case of H ydro-Tech Engg. Company & Anr. Vs. N.C.T. Of Delhi and others (supra) Letters Patent Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court has set aside ex parte award upsetting the order of Hon'ble Single Judge.

¶31

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satnam Verma Vs. Union of India (supra) has upheld the application for setting aside award which was moved within 30 days of the publication of award.

¶32

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sangham Tape Co. Vs. Hans Raj (2005) 9 SCC 331 has been pleased to lay down as under:-

¶33

“6. 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

¶34

CR No.2563 of 1992

¶35

¶36

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.

¶37

xx xx

¶38

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 the Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute referred to it for adjudication, and only up to that date, it has the power to entertain an application in connection with such dispute.”

¶39

Thus, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble

¶40

Supreme Court in the case of Sangham Tape Co. Vs. Hans Raj (supra) no error can be found in the order passed by the learned Labour Court.

¶41

Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed.

¶42

However, it would be open to the petitioner to impugn the

¶43

award in the appropriate forum.

¶44

(Vinod K.Sharma) Judge