JUDGMENT
Mital, C.J.
1. Rule. D.B.
2. On November 29, 1985, the Labour Court gave an award in the presence of Mr. Kashyap, who was the secretary of the Union, of which the workman was a member, and his authorised representative. The award was published in the Gazette on June 5, 1986, and it became enforceable after the expiry of 30 days.
3. More than two years after the publication of the award, on behalf of the workman, the same authorised representative filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, on July 4, 1988, stating that the workman was not served in the reference. The Labour Court by order dated November 6, 1989, allowed the application and set aside the award by observing as follows :
“There is absolutely nothing to show that the union had intimated the workman about the reference. On the other hand the workman has stated on oath in his affidavit that he had gone to his village and that he had no information of the reference. In these circumstances, it will not be fair to penalise the workman for an irresponsible statement made by the secretary of the Union.”
4. As already pointed out, Shri S. L. Kashyap had appeared for the workman in the proceedings before the Labour Court which culminated in the award dated November 29, 1985, and the same person, the secretary of the Union had filed the application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the Labour Court was not justified, on the facts of the case, in setting aside the award.
5. There is another jurisdictional point, which arises in this case. It has been held in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal (1981-I-LLJ-327), that the Labour Court retains jurisdiction to entertain an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure code, till expiry of 30 days from the publication of the award. Necessarily, the Labour Court becomes functus officio only after 30 days of the expiry of the date of the publication of the award. In this case, 30 days expired on July 5, 1986, whereas the application for setting aside the award was filed on July 4, 1988, about two years thereafter. The Labour Court has lost jurisdiction to entertain the application and the impugned order passed on the basis of that application is without jurisdiction. On this ground also, the order of the Labour Court dated November 6, 1989, deserved to be set aside.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Labour Court, setting aside the award is hereby quashed. However, we make no order as to costs.
