K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J. - (1.)The challenge in the above original petition is levelled against Ext.P5 order of the Industrial Tribunal, in applications filed for setting aside an ex -parte award and condonation of delay. Placing reliance on the decision in Sangham Tape Company v. Hans Raj (2005 (9) SCC331) the Labour Court found that it is functus officio after 30 days of publication of the award and rejected the application.
(2.)The learned counsel for the respondent workman places before me a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mother Superior Vs. State of Kerala (2003 (2) KLT 417) to further urge that the order of the Labour Court be sustained and the writ petition dismissed. Therein the management challenged an ex -parte award after 30 days of publication of the award. The learned Single Judge relying on Grindlays Bank v. Central Industrial Tribunal (1980 Supp: SCC 420) held that the original petition could not be entertained since this Court was exercising jurisdiction; the Labour Court was exercising.
(3.)The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank was concerned with the application filed by the management before the Industrial Tribunal to set aside an ex -parte award. The questions raised for adjudication, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were (i) whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to set aside the ex -parte award particularly when it was posted for evidence and (ii) whether the Tribunal becomes functus officio on the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the ex -parte award, by virtue of Sections 17 & 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The specific contention raised by the workman in the said case was that neither the Act nor the rules framed thereunder, conferred the power on the Tribunal to set aside the ex -parte award. Though there was no express provision in the Act and Rules, it was found that the Tribunal had inherent power to consider, setting aside of an ex -parte award, in the interest of justice, since the procedural rules granted it power, to proceed ex -parte; in the context of absence of a party to the dispute. The Tribunal was found to have been invested with such incidental and ancillary powers especially since there was nothing in the statute indicating the contrary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed sub -section (3) of Section 20 of the ID Act, which provides for the continuance of proceedings before the Tribunal till the date on which the award become enforceable under Section 17A; which is on the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the award under Section 17. Till then, the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal is deemed to be continuing and the Tribunal, thus retaining jurisdiction over the dispute, would be entitled to entertain any application in connection with the dispute, was the finding. Till that stage is reached; ie: till 30 days from the publication of the award; the Tribunal does not become functus officio.