Mrs.Kamlesh Lamba vs The Presiding Officer on 5 December, 2008

CR No.2563 of 1992                                               1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH




                                      CR No.2563 of 1992

                                      Date of Decision: 5.12.2008



Mrs.Kamlesh Lamba                                         ....Petitioner

                         Vs.

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr.                ..Respondents




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



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

            None for the respondents.

                         ---

Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral)

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.

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.
CR No.2563 of 1992 2

As no body appeared on behalf of the petitioner reference was

disposed of for want of prosecution.

The award was published on 12.1.1990 in the Punjab

Government Gazette.

The petitioner thereafter filed an application on 12.9.1991 for

restoration of reference and for setting aside award dated 15.9.1988.

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.

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 Hydro-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.

However, on consideration of the mater, I find no force in the

contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

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
CR No.2563 of 1992 3

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.

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.

Again in the case of Hydro-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.

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.

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:-

“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
CR No.2563 of 1992 4

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.

7. xx xx

8. 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.”

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

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.

Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed.

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

award in the appropriate forum.

5.12.2008                                         (Vinod K.Sharma)
rp                                                     Judge